Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 46 views

    G.R. No. 177007

    Uploaded by

    Eap Bustillo
    The RTC and MeTC ruled that service of summons on the defendants inside the courtroom was valid as it was the most practical option. The defendants refused to receive the summons without valid cause. The RTC denied the defendants' motion for reconsideration. The issue is whether service of summons was valid. The Supreme Court ruled that service was valid, as personal service was impossible and efforts were made to locate the defendants. Jurisdiction over the defendants was validly acquired since they failed to respond to the complaint.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    G.R. No. 177007

    Uploaded by

    Eap Bustillo
    46 views2 pages
    The RTC and MeTC ruled that service of summons on the defendants inside the courtroom was valid as it was the most practical option. The defendants refused to receive the summons without valid cause. The RTC denied the defendants' motion for reconsideration. The issue is whether service of summons was valid. The Supreme Court ruled that service was valid, as personal service was impossible and efforts were made to locate the defendants. Jurisdiction over the defendants was validly acquired since they failed to respond to the complaint.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The RTC and MeTC ruled that service of summons on the defendants inside the courtroom was valid as it was the most practical option. The defendants refused to receive the summons without valid cause. The RTC denied the defendants' motion for reconsideration. The issue is whether service of summons was valid. The Supreme Court ruled that service was valid, as personal service was impossible and efforts were made to locate the defendants. Jurisdiction over the defendants was validly acquired since they failed to respond to the complaint.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    46 views2 pages

    G.R. No. 177007

    Uploaded by

    Eap Bustillo
    The RTC and MeTC ruled that service of summons on the defendants inside the courtroom was valid as it was the most practical option. The defendants refused to receive the summons without valid cause. The RTC denied the defendants' motion for reconsideration. The issue is whether service of summons was valid. The Supreme Court ruled that service was valid, as personal service was impossible and efforts were made to locate the defendants. Jurisdiction over the defendants was validly acquired since they failed to respond to the complaint.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    SANSIO PHILIPPINES, INC. vs.

    SPOUSES ALICIA AND


    LEODEGARIO MOGOL, JR.
    G.R. No. 177007, July 14, 2009
    PONENTE: CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:

    FACTS:

    The RTC of Manila, Branch 50, promulgated its Decision,


    affirming in toto the Decision of the MeTC of Manila, Branch 25.
    The RTC declared that there is no requirement that the summons
    should only be served in the place stated in the summons. What is
    required is that a summons must be served by handing a copy
    thereof to the defendant in person, or, if he refuses to receive and
    sign for it, by tendering it to him. Under the circumstances of the
    case, the service of the copy of the summons and the complaint
    inside the courtroom of the MeTC of Manila, Branch 24 was the
    most practicable act. The process server need not wait for the
    respondent spouses Mogol to reach with their given address before
    he could serve on the latter with summons and the copy of the
    complaint. The refusal of respondent spouses Mogol to receive the
    summons without valid cause was, thus, equivalent to a valid
    service of summons that vested jurisdiction in the MeTC of Manila,
    Branch 25.

    Respondent spouses Mogol sought a reconsideration of the


    aforesaid Decision, but the RTC of Manila, Branch 50, denied the
    same in an Order dated 4 October 2004, finding no cogent reason
    to disturb its earlier judgment. Thereafter, respondent spouses
    Mogol no longer filed any appeal on the above Decision of the RTC
    of Manila.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the service of summons was validly served to


    the defendant under the circumstances mentioned in the case.

    RULING:

    Sections 6 and 7 of Rule 14 of the Rules of Court cannot be


    construed to apply simultaneously. Said provisions do not provide
    for alternative modes of service of summons, which can either be
    resorted to on the mere basis of convenience to the parties. Under
    our procedural rules, service of summons in the persons of the
    defendants is generally preferred over substituted service.
    Substituted service derogates the regular method of personal
    service.

    It is an extraordinary method, since it seeks to bind the


    respondent or the defendant to the consequences of a suit, even
    though notice of such action is served not upon him but upon
    another whom the law could only presume would notify him of the
    pending proceedings. For substituted service to be justified, the
    following circumstances must be clearly established: (a) personal
    service of summons within a reasonable time was impossible; (b)
    efforts were exerted to locate the party; and (c) the summons was
    served upon a person of sufficient age and discretion residing at
    the party’s residence or upon a competent person in charge of the
    party’s office or place of business.

    In fine, we rule that jurisdiction over the persons of the


    respondent spouses Mogol was validly acquired by the MeTC,
    Branch 25 in this case. For their failure to file any responsive
    pleading to the Complaint filed against them, in violation of the
    order of the said court as stated in the summons, respondent
    spouses Mogol were correctly declared in default.

    You might also like