Issues & problems in the service of summons processes-ppt.

TOPIC:
ISSUES AND PROBLEMS
IN THE SERVICE OF
SUMMONS/PROCESSES
by:
Hon. Mary Jane B. Dacara-Buenaventura
Presiding Judge
MTCC, Branch 02, City of San Fernando, Pampanga

Aguilar vs. Judge How, et al.
[A.M. No. RTJ-03-1783 July 31, 2003]:
“It bears emphasizing that the process server’s
duty is vital in the administration of justice because it is
through him that defendants learn of the action
brought against them by the complainant. More
important, it is also through the service of summons by
the process server that the trial court acquires
jurisdiction over the defendant. It is therefore crucial
that summons, writs and other court processes be
served expeditiously, consonant with the mandate of
speedy dispensation of justice stressed by the
Constitution.”

Musni vs. Morales [A.M. No. P-99-1340
promulgated on September 23, 1999]
General Function of a Process Server:
(1) Serves court processes such as subpoena, summons,
court order and notice;
(2) Prepares and submits returns of court processes;
(3) Monitors messages and/or delivers court mails;
(4) Maintains and keeps custody of record book of court mail
matters received and dispatched by him; and
(4) Performs such other duties as may be assigned to him.

OCA Circular No. 56-2003
dated May 22, 2003
“In Multiple sala court, it is the Branch Clerk of
Court who issues the summons.”
“Henceforth, all Clerks of Court in multiple sala
courts are ordered to cease and desist from issuing
summons to defendants and strict compliance to the
aforecited provision is hereby enjoined.”

Section 3, Rule 14 of the 1997
Revised Rules on Civil Procedure,
summons may be served by:
(1) The Sheriff;
(2) The Deputy Sheriff;
(3) Other Proper Court Officers or Court-
Appointed Personnel e.g. process server;
(4) Any suitable person authorized by the court

RETURN OF SUMMONS:
Section 4, Rule 14, provides that the return
of summons shall be:
within 5 days from completion of service.
A copy of the return must be furnished to
the plaintiff’s counsel either by mail or
personal service.

Modes of Service of Summons
(1) By personal service;
(2) By Substituted Service;
(3) By Extraterritorial Service.

By Personal Service:
(1) by handing a copy of the summons to
the defendant in person, or,
(2) if the defendant refuses to receive
and sign for it, by tendering it to him.
(Note: physical presence of the defendant is
required).

Section 7 of Rule 14 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure:
SEC. 7. Substituted service. – If, for justifiable
causes, the defendant cannot be served within a
reasonable time as provided in the preceding section
[personal service on defendant], 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.
.

In resorting to substituted service, the
process server should be GUIDED by the
requirements laid down by the Supreme
Court in the decision rendered in the case
of Manotoc vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, et
al., G.R. No. 130974 promulgated on
August 16, 2006, penned by Associate
Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.

Following the decision in the Manotoc
case, the provision on Substituted Service
under the rules can be broken down into
the following requirements to effect a valid
substituted service:
(1) Impossibility of Prompt Personal Service;
(2) Specific Details in the Return;
(3) A Person of Suitable Age and Discretion;
(4) A Competent Person in Charge.

(1) Impossibility of Prompt Personal
Service:
(a) Attempts were made to personally serve the
summons within reasonable time. For this purpose,
30 days is considered a reasonable time;
(b) The attempt was made several times, at least
three (3) tries, preferably on at least two (2) different
dates;
(c) The reason why such efforts are unsuccessful
should be stated.

CERTIFICATION
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on many occasions several attempts
were made to serve the summons with complaint and annexes issued by
this Honorable Court in the above entitled case, personally upon the
defendant IMELDA ‘IMEE’ MARCOS-MANOTOC located at Alexandra
Condominium Corpration [sic] or Alexandra Homes E-2 Room 104 No. 29
Merlaco [sic] Ave., Pasig, Metro-Manila at reasonable hours of the day
but to no avail for the reason that said defendant is usually out of her
place and/or residence or premises. That on the 15th day of July, 1993,
substituted service of summons was resorted to in accordance with the
Rules of Court in the Philippines leaving copy of said summons with
complaint and annexes thru [sic] (Mr) Macky de la Cruz, caretaker of the
said defendant, according to (Ms) Lyn Jacinto, Receptionist and
Telephone Operator of the said building, a person of suitable age and
discretion, living with the said defendant at the given address who
acknowledged the receipt thereof of said processes but he refused to
sign (emphases supplied).
WHEREFORE, said summons is hereby returned to this Honorable
Court of origin, duly served for its record and information.
Pasig, Metro-Manila July 15, 1993.

Umandap v. Sabio, Jr., [G.R. No. 140244,
August 29, 200] 339 SCRA 243, 249, held
that:
“ x x x a Sheriff’s Return, which states
that “despite efforts exerted to serve said
process personally upon the defendant on
several occasions the same proved
futile,”* conforms to the requirements of
valid substituted service.”
*Note: Such general statement no longer suffice
(Manotoc Case)*

GENERALLY COUCHED PHRASES:
(*no longer accepted)
(a) “on many occasions several attempts were
made to serve the summons x x x personally,”;
(b) “at reasonable hours during the day,” and;
(c) “to no avail for the reason that the said
defendant is usually out of her place and/or
residence or premises.”
*Manotoc case

(2) Specific Details in the Return
The Return of Service should clearly state in detail or in particularity
the facts and circumstances of:
(a) The detail on the number of attempts made at personal service;
(b) The dates and times of the attempts;
© The inquiries to locate the defendant;
(d) The names of occupants of the alleged residence; and
(e) The reasons for the failure to personally serve the summons to
the defendant. It must satisfactorily show the efforts undertaken,
and those resulted in failure, would prove impossibility of prompt
personal service.

(3) Person of suitable Age and Discretion:
(a) A person who must be found in the dwelling or residence of
defendant;
(b) A person of legal age or who has attained the age of full
legal capacity (18 years old);
(c) A person with enough discernment to understand the
importance of a summons;
(d) A person who knows how to read and understand English
to comprehend the import of the summons;
(e) A person who have the “relation of confidence” to the
defendant

“Discretion” is defined as –
“the ability to make decisions which
represent a responsible choice and
for which an understanding of what is
lawful, right or wise may be
presupposed”.

(4) A Competent Person in Charge
(a) A competent person in charge of the office or
defendant’s regular place of business;
(b) A person who is managing the office or business
of defendant, e g. president or manager;
© A person of sufficient knowledge to understand the
obligation of the defendant in the summons, its
importance, and the prejudicial effects arising from
inaction on the summons

Extraterritorial Service:
(Section 15, Rule 14)
Four (4) instances:
(1) when the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff;
(2) when the action relates to, or the subject of which is property, within the
Philippines, in which the defendant claims a lien or an interest, actual or
contingent;
(3) when the relief demanded in such action consists, wholly or in part, in
excluding the defendant from any interest in property located in the
Philippines; and
(4) when the defendant non-resident’s property has been attached within
the Philippines.

In these instances, service of
summons may be effected by:
(a) personal service out of the country, with
leave of court;
(b) publication, also with leave of court; or
(c) any other manner the court may deem
sufficient.

Mangudadatu vs. HRET et al.,
[G.R. No. 179813, December 18, 2008],
which held that:
“Service by registered mail is not
allowed on jurisdictional and due process
grounds.”

Section 11 of Rule 14 of the Rules
of Court :
SEC. 11. Service upon domestic private
juridical entity. — When the defendant is a
corporation, partnership or association
organized under the laws of the Philippines
with a juridical personality, service may be
made on the president, managing partner,
general manager, corporate secretary,
treasurer, or in-house counsel.

SERVICE OF SUMMONS UPON OTHER
NATURAL PERSONS
(1) Residents temporarily out of the Philippines - e.g. seaman, OFW’s
(a) personal service;
(b) substituted service;
© extraterritorial service:
c.1. personal service out of the Phils.
c.2. publication (quasi in rem)
(2) Prisoner – service is made thru the Jail Warden or Chief/Head of the jail
or institution as they are deemed designated as “special sheriff”;
(3) Minor – personally upon the minor and his/her father or mother;
(4) Incompetent – personally upon the incompetent and legal guardian, if
none, the guardian ad litem

Section 11, Rule 14:
For Domestic private juridical
entity, service of summons shall be
made upon the:
Defendant, which is a: (a) corporation;
(b) partnership or; © association –:
President *President
Managing partner *Manager
General Manager *Any Director
Corporate Secretary *Secretary
Treasurer, or *Cashier
In-house Counsel *Agent
*Old Rule – Section 13, Rule 14

Take Note:
The Enumeration under Section 11,
Rule 14:
restricted
limited
exclusive
(*expressio unios est exclusio alterius*)

Selected decisions on the validity of service of
summons upon domestic private juridical entity:
(1) Attys. Douglas V. Santiago, Cypres Agbayani-Santiago & Roy
Philippe Talao, petitioners, vs. Hon. Presiding Judge Normandie B.
Pizarro, Br. 101, RTC, Quezon City and Jose S. Tidon, doing
business under the name & style of Suprema Lex Credit Collection
Services, respondents. [[CA GR SP No. 85680. February 21, 2005],
it was held that service of summons upon the defendant partnership
thru a mere office secretary cannot be given valid effect;
(2) Orion Security Corporation vs. Kalfam Enterprises, Inc. [G.R. No.
163287, April 27, 2007], it was held in this case that service of
summons by leaving the summons and a copy of the complaint at
respondent-corporation’s office through respondent’s security guard,
but refused to acknowledge receipt thereof, was not valid.

(3) ACY Transport Corporation, petitioner, vs. Hon. Delia H. Panganiban,
in her capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 64, Regional Trial Court of
Makati, and the Heirs of Ligaya Mojar, represented by Romeo T. Mojar,
respondents. [CA-G.R. SP No. 73050. February 16, 2005], it was held that
the substituted service of summons to defendant-corporation, through Mr.
Domingo Padilla Jr., a personnel manager/dispatcher, was improper.
Notably, it was further held that: “substituted service of summons
under Section 7 of Rule 14 applies only when the defendant is a natural
person who could not be served summons within a reasonable time.”
In view of the unavailability of the President of the defendant-corporation,
summons on the same should have been effected upon its other officers,
as enumerated in Section 11 of Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure.

(4) E..B. Villarosa & Partner Co., Ltd. vs., 312 SCRA 65, 73.[5 ] In said
case, the service of summons upon the branch manager of the corporation
was held to be improper as the designation of persons or officers who are
authorized to accept summons for a domestic corporation or partnership is
now limited and more clearly specified in Section 11, Rule 14 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure.
(5) Mason vs. Court of Appeals,[6] Benito [G.R. No. 144662. October 13,
2003], 413 SCRA 303, 311: it was held that service through Ayreen
Rejalde, a mere filing clerk of private respondent-corporation and not one
of those enumerated under Section 11, Rule 14, is invalid. In this case, it
reiterated the ruling in E. B. Villarosa & Partner Co., Ltd vs. Benito, supra,
which held that the enumeration in Section 11, Rule 14 of the officers of
the corporation upon whom summons may be served is restricted, limited
and exclusive, following the rule in statutory construction that expressio
unios est exclusio alterius. Absent a manifest intent to liberalize the rule,
strict compliance with Section 11, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure was stressed.

Selected decisions on the validity of
service of summons upon domestic
private juridical entity:
(6) Bank of the Philippine Islands, petitioner, vs. Spouses
Willie and Julie L. Evangelista and LTS Philippines
Corporation, respondents. [G.R. 146553. November 27, 2002],
it was held that “The return of the summons served upon
respondent-corporation failed to indicate the designation or
title of the recipient, who should be the corporation’s president,
managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary,
treasurer, or in-house counsel.” The case was remanded to
the court of origin for further proceedings. Those proceedings
shall include a determination of whether there was actually a
valid service of summonses.

(7) DOLE PHILIPPINES, INC. (TROPIFRESH DIVISION), petitioner
versus HON. REINATO G. QUILALA in his capacity as pairing judge of
Branch 150, RTC-Makati City, and ALL SEASON FARM, CORP.[G.R. No.
168723. July 9, 2008], in this case, it appears that on April 23, 2003, Marifa
Dela Cruz, a legal assistant, received the alias summons.[12] Contrary to
private respondent’s claim that it was received upon instruction of the
president of the corporation as indicated in the Officer’s Return, such fact
does not appear in the receiving copy of the alias summons which Marifa
Dela Cruz signed. There was no evidence that she was authorized to
receive court processes in behalf of the president. Considering that the
service of summons was made on a legal assistant, not employed by
herein petitioner and who is not one of the designated persons under
Section 11, Rule 14, the trial court did not validly acquire jurisdiction over
petitioner.

Foreign Private Juridical Entity
Service may be made on:
(a) Designated resident agent;
(b) If no such agent, on the government official
designated by law or on any of its officers or
agents within the Philippines.

Public Corporation
If Defendant is:
(a) Republic of the Phils. – Solicitor General;
(b) Local Government Units – Chief Executive
Head or designated officer under the law e.g.
Governor, Mayor, etc.
© Other Public Corporation – officer/s as the
law or the court may direct.

SUBPOENA
Section 6, Rule 21:
Service of a subpoena shall be made in
the same manner as personal or substituted
service of summons.

SERVICE TRUST FUND
Section 10, Rule 141, Rules of Court, as
amended by the Supreme Court en Banc
Resolution dated July 20, 2004 in A.M. No. 04-
2-04-SC,

“Sec. 10. Sheriffs, PROCESS SERVERS and
other persons serving processes. X x x
In addition to the fees hereinabove fixed, the amount of One
Thousand (P1,000.00) Pesos shall be deposited with the Clerk of Court
upon filing of the complaint to defray the actual travel expenses of the
Sheriff, Process Server or other court-authorized persons in the service of
summons, subpoena and other court processes that would be issued
relative to the trial of the case. In case the initial deposit of One Thousand
(P1,000.00) Pesos is not sufficient, then the plaintiff or petitioner shall be
required to make an additional deposit. The Sheriff, Process Server or
other court-authorized person shall submit to the court for its approval a
Statement of the Estimated Travel Expenses for service of summons and
court processes. Once approved, the Clerk of Court shall release the
money to said sheriff or process server. After service, a statement of
liquidation shall be submitted to the court for approval. After rendition of
judgment by the court, any excess from the deposit shall be returned to the
party who made the deposit.”

Sec. 10 …… con’t
“In case a request to serve the summons and
other court processes is made to the Clerk of Court
and Ex-Officio Sheriff who has jurisdiction over the
place where the defendant or the person subject of
process resides, a reasonable amount shall be
withdrawn from said deposit by the Clerk of Court
issuing the process for the purchase of a postal
money order to cover the actual expenses of the
serving sheriff.”

Before Service of Summons
Steps:
(a) Prepare and submit the Statement of
Estimated Travel Expenses (SETE) to the Court;
(b) Secure the approval of the SETE by the
Presiding Judge;
© Submit SETE to the Clerk of Court;
(d) Clerk of Court to release the requested
amount.

After Service of Summons
Steps:
(a) Make and submit a Return within 5 days from completion
of service, copy furnished the plaintiff;
(b) Submit to the Court a Statement of Liquidation (SOL):
b.1. Signed by the Process Server; and
b.2. Certified by the Branch Clerk of Court/Clerk of
Court as to the proper and completeness of
the supporting documents;
© Secure from the Presiding Judge a Certification as to the
duly accomplished cash advance and purpose of travel.

Sample Forms for:
(a) Statement of Estimated Travel Expenses
(SETE)
(b) Disbursement Voucher;
© Itinerary of Travel;
(d) Statement of Liquidation (SOL):
(e) Certificate of Travel Completed

Issues & problems in the service of summons processes-ppt.

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Issues & problems in the service of summons processes-ppt. (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Issues & problems in the service of summons processes-ppt.