Facts:

Full Case Title: Sansio Philippines, Inc., vs. Spouses Alicia and Leodegario
Mogol, Jr. 1. Spouses Mogul, through post-dated checks, purchased from Sansio
Philippines air-conditioning units and fans worth Php 217,250 and Php
Date of Promulgation: July 14, 2009 5,521.20 respectively.
a. Checks for payment were dishonored.
Doctrine: b. This prompted the spouses to make partial payments in cash,
leaving a balance of Php 87,953.12 unpaid.
Recit - Ready Summary: Sps. Mogol buy airconditioning and fan units from
2. Despite repeated demands, the spouses were not able to pay their
petitioner, but fail to pay completely. Petitioner files suit for collection of
money. obligation, prompting Sansio to file a case for collection of sum of
money.
At the request of the petitioner, the process server of the MeTC served the a. In complaint, the petitioner stated that the respondents were
summons and copy of complaint to the Sps. Mogol at the MeTC courtroom. to be served at their place of business, in Lucena City.
Respondent Sps. Were present at the time due to another hearing for a 3. 2000 October 3: At the request of petitioner, the process server of the
criminal offense. Complaint referred to their counsel, who told the
MeTC of Manila served the summons and the copy of the complaint
respondents not to sign since the summons and complaint should be served
at the address stated in the documents. Respondents are eventually on respondent spouses Mogol at the courtroom of the MeTC of
declared in default, but argue that the court did not validly acquire Manila, Branch 24.
jurisdiction since they were not served the summons and copy of complaint a. Respondent spouses were in the said premises, as they were
at the address they provided. They raise this argument all the way up to the waiting for the scheduled hearing of the criminal cases filed by
SC, since the CA found for them. petitioner against respondent Alicia Mogol for violations of
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.
SC allows the petition of Sansio, ruling that Sections 6 and 7 of Rule 14 of
b. Upon being informed of the summons and complaint,
the Rules of Court cannot be construed to apply simultaneously. Said
provisions do not provide for alternative modes of service of summons, respondents referred the same to their counsel.
which can either be resorted to on the mere basis of convenience to the i. Counsel pointed out to the process server that the
parties. There was already a valid service of summons in the persons of complaint should be served only at the address that
respondent spouses Mogol in the courtroom of the MeTC when their was stated in both documents, i.e., at 1218 Daisy St.,
counsel, upon their explicit instructions, received and read the same on Employee Village, Lucena City, and not anywhere else.
their behalf. Contrary to the ruling of the Court of Appeals, the fact that the
c. Counsel returned the summons and the complaint copy, and
summons was returned to the process server and respondent spouses
advised his clients to not take it and sign for the same.
Mogul subsequently declined to sign for them did not mean that the service
of summons in the persons of respondent spouses was a failure, such that a d. As the process server could not convince the respondent
further effort was required to serve the summons anew. A tender of spouses Mogol to sign for the aforementioned documents, he
summons, much less, a substituted service of summons, need no longer be proceeded to leave the premises of the courtroom.
resorted to in this case.
 4. 2000 October 4: the process server of the MeTC of Manila issued a - held that Section 6, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court does not mandate
Return on Service of Summons. that summons be served strictly at the address provided by the
5. 2000 December 6, petitioner filed a Motion to declare the plaintiff in the complaint. Contrarily, said provision states that the
respondents in default. service of summons may be made wherever such is possible and
a. Petitioner averred that the summons and the copy of the practicable.
complaint were already validly served upon the respondent - Therefore, it did not matter much that the summons and the copy of
spouses Mogol at the courtroom of the MeTC, Branch 24, the complaint in this case were served inside the courtroom of the
which they refused to accept for no valid reason at all. MeTC of Manila, Branch 24, instead of the address at 1218 Daisy St.,
b. From date of service to the filing of motion, no responsive Employee Village, Lucena City.
pleading had been filed.
6. 2000 December 15, through special appearance of counsel, CA ruling: Reversed RTC ruling, granted respondents’ petition.
respondents filed an Opposition to the Motion. - Ratio is that in one case, the Supreme Court ruled that the refusal of a
a. They posited that Section 3, Rule 6 of the Rules of Court defendant to receive the summons is a technicality resorted to in an
requires that the complaint must contain the names and apparent attempt to frustrate the ends of justice. The CA held that the
residences of the plaintiff and defendant. Therefore, the trial court may further resort to substituted service of summons, as
process server should have taken notice of the allegation of provided under Sec. 7, Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Court.
the complaint, which referred to the address of respondent In the meantime:
spouses Mogol wherein court processes may be served. - Petitioner had presented its evidence ex parte in the collection case.
b. If such service, as alleged in the complaint, could not be - MeTC ruled for petitioners.
complied with within a reasonable time, then and only then - Upon appeal by Sps. Mogol, the RTC affirmed the MeTC ruling.
may the process server resort to substituted service. o Found that S6R14 does not require that the summons are to
be served in the place stated in the summons.
MeTC: Granted the Motion to Declare in Default. o What is required is that the summons must be served by
- Ruled that S6R14 of the Rules of Court does not specify where service handing a copy thereof to the defendant in person, or, if he
is to be effected. For obvious reasons, because service of summons is refuses to receive and sign for it, by tendering it to him. Under
made by handing a copy thereof to the defendant in person, the same the circumstances of the case, the service of the copy of the
may be undertaken wherever the defendant may be found. summons and the complaint inside the courtroom of the
- TC said that the service upon the Sps. In the courtroom was valid MeTC of Manila, Branch 24 was the most practicable act.
service of summons. o MR denied.
- MR denied. o Hence, the petition.

RTC ruling: Dismissed the respondent’s petition. Issue/s: W/N the service of summons in the courtroom was a valid service of
summons (YES)
 a. The respondents had argued that S6 could not be singled out
Ratio/ Legal Basis: without construing with S7.
1. First, the court explained when a service of summons may be made b. Their argument was that in civil cases, summons must be
through personal or substituted service as per S6 & 7 of Rule 14 of the served upon the defendants personally at the designated
Rules of Court. (see below) place alleged in the complaint. If the defendants refuse to
a. Essentially, if an action is in personam or one that seeks to receive and sign the summons, then the process server must
impose responsibility or liability directly upon a person tender the same to them by leaving a copy at the residence of
through court judgment; and the defendants. If the summons cannot be served in person
b. That defendant is in the Philippines. because of the absence of the defendants at the address
2. The Court held that in the present case, there was already a valid stated, then the same can be served by (1) leaving copies of
service of summons in the persons of respondent spouses Mogol. the summons at the defendants’ residence with some person
a. That the act of the counsel of the respondents in receiving the of suitable age and discretion residing therein, or (2) leaving
summons and the copy of the complaint already constituted the copies at defendants’ office or regular place of business
receipt on the part of his clients, for it was done at their with some competent person in charge thereof.
behest and consent. 5. Court said that 6 and 7 cannot be construed to apply simultaneously.
b. The operative act of “handing” a copy was already done. a. The provisions do not provide for alternative modes of service
c. As a result, jurisdiction had already been acquired. of summons.
d. The subsequent act of the counsel of returning the summons b. Under the procedural rules, service of summons in the
and copy of complaint was no longer material. persons of the defendants is generally preferred over
3. Court clarified that Section 6, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court does not substituted service.
require that the service of summons on the defendant in person must c. It is an extraordinary method, since it seeks to bind the
be effected only at the latter’s residence as stated in the summons. respondent or the defendant to the consequences of a suit,
a. The Court said that the provision was clear that, whenever even though notice of such action is served not upon him but
practicable, summons shall be served by handing a copy upon another whom the law could only presume would notify
thereof to the defendant; or if he refuses to receive and sign him of the pending proceedings.
for it, by tendering it to him. Nothing more is required. 6. Court clarified the circumstances necessary to justify substituted
b. Due to the distance, service would have been more costly and service:
entailed delay in effecting the service of summons if it was a. Personal service of summons within a reasonable time was
required to be served in Lucena. impossible;
b. efforts were exerted to locate the party; and
On the issue of the summons being served at the address specified c. the summons was served upon a person of sufficient age and
4. The Court stated that the respondents had appreciated Sections 6 and discretion residing at the party’s residence or upon a
7 of Rule 14 of the Rules of court wrong.
 competent person in charge of the party’s office or place of the notice desired. Once the service provided by the rules reasonably
business. accomplishes that end, the requirement of justice is answered; the
7. The Court said that a contrary ruling would give every future traditional notions of fair play are satisfied and due process is served.
defendant to a case the unwarranted means to easily thwart the 10. The Court ruled that jurisdiction over the persons of the respondent
cardinal procedures for the service of summons at the simple spouses Mogol was validly acquired by the MeTC, Branch 25 in this
expedient of returning the summons and the copy of the complaint to case. For their failure to file any responsive pleading to the Complaint
the process server and refusing to sign for the same even after being filed against them, in violation of the order of the said court as stated
already informed of their contents. in the summons, respondent spouses Mogol were correctly declared
8. Finally, the Court delved into the CA’s appreciation of the second in default.
paragraph of the Return on Service of Summons stating that the Disposition: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review on
original and duplicate copies of the Summons were returned Certiorari under Rule 45 is GRANTED. The Decision dated 21 November 2006
"UNSERVED," and the Resolution dated 12 March 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP
a. The Court held that A simple reading of the first paragraph of No. 70029 are hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. The Order dated 18 January
the Return on Service of Summons, which contains the 2002 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 33, in Civil Case No. 01-
circumstances surrounding the service of the summons on the 101267 is hereby AFFIRMED. No costs.
persons of the respondent spouses Mogol, manifestly reveals
that the summons and the copy of the complaint were already Cases cited:
validly served on the said respondents. They merely refused to Lazaro v Rural Bank of Francisco Balagtas: that the service of summons to be
receive or obtain a copy of the same. done personally does not mean that service is possible only at the defendant’s
b. The certificate of service of the process server is prima actual residence. It is enough that the defendant is handed a copy of the
facie evidence of the facts as set out therein. This is fortified summons in person by anyone authorized by law. This is distinct from
by the presumption of the regularity of performance of official substituted service under Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. As already
duty. To overcome the presumption of regularity of official discussed above, there was already a valid service of summons in the persons
functions in favor of such sheriff’s return, the evidence against of respondent spouses Mogol in the courtroom of the MeTC of Manila, Branch
it must be clear and convincing. Sans the requisite quantum of 24, when their counsel, upon their explicit instructions, received and read the
proof to the contrary, the presumption stands deserving of same on their behalf. Contrary to the ruling of the Court of Appeals, the fact
faith and credit. that the summons was returned to the process server and respondent spouses
c. The Respondents did not even dispute the facts in the Return Mogul subsequently declined to sign for them did not mean that the service of
on Service. summons in the persons of respondent spouses was a failure, such that a
d. The Court held that the return saying the summons had gone further effort was required to serve the summons anew. A tender of
unserved did not justify non-filing of responsive pleading. summons, much less, a substituted service of summons, need no longer be
9. The Court held that the constitutional requirement of due process resorted to in this case.
exacts that the service be such as may be reasonably expected to give Laws cited:
Sections 6 and 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court.
SEC. 6. Service in person on defendant. – Whenever practicable, the summons
shall 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.

SEC. 7. Substituted service. – If, for justifiable causes, the defendant cannot be
served within a reasonable time as provided in the preceding section, service
may be effected (a) by leaving copies of the summons at the defendant’s
residence with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing
therein; or (b) by leaving the copies at defendant’s office or regular place of
business with some competent person in charge thereof.
It is well-established that summons upon a respondent or a defendant must
be served by handing a copy thereof to him in person or, if he refuses to
receive it, by tendering it to him. Personal service of summons most effectively
ensures that the notice desired under the constitutional requirement of due
process is accomplished. The essence of personal service is the handing or
tendering of a copy of the summons to the defendant himself, wherever he
may be found; that is, wherever he may be, provided he is in the Philippines.