Rule 14

SUMMONS

Summons in civil cases is the counterpart of warrant of arrest in criminal cases. Under
the Rules on Criminal Procedure, when an information is filed in court, the judge will issue a
warrant of arrest. In civil cases, when a complaint is filed in court, the court will issue what is
known as a summons under Sec. 1

Sec. 1. Clerk to issue summons. - Upon the filing of the complaint and the
payment of the requisite legal fees, the clerk of court shall forthwith issue the
corresponding summons to the defendants. (1a)

Summons defined

Summons is defined as a writ or process issued and served upon a defendant in a civil
action for the purpose of securing his appearance therein. Sec. 2 states the contents of a
summons:

Sec. 2. Contents. - The summons shall be directed to the defendants, signed by

the clerk of court under seal, and contain:

a) the name of the court and the names of the parties to the action;
b) a direction that the defendant answer within the time fixed by these Rules;
c) a notice that unless the defendant so answers, plaintiff will take judgment by
default and may be granted the relief applied for.

A copy of the complaint and order for appointment of guardian ad

litem, if any, shall be attached to the original and each copy of the summons. (3a)

The purpose of a summons is to enable the court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of
a defendant. Just like a warrant of arrest. If a defendant is not served with summons, the effect
is that the court never acquired jurisdiction over his person. Therefore, any judgment rendered in
regard to such defendant is completely null and void. The judgment does not bind him unless he
waives the defect. Because it is waivable.

Ano ang plural ng summons? Meron bang plural yan? Ano? Summonses? I think it is
still summons, whether singular or plural. The verb is, of course to summon. Tawagin mo.
Summons is a noun, a legal term. But actually, there is a similarity in meaning because you are
being called to answer in a case.

Summons on amended complaint

Suppose I will file a complaint against A and then later on I will amend my complaint. I
will include B. Is there a necessity of another summons on B? Of course, there was already a
summons against A. If you include an additional defendant, does the law require another
summons on the additional defendant? YES. He is completely a different defendant from the
first. So, another summons has to be issued to bind the additional defendant.
On substituted parties

This situation should not be confused with another situation where suppose I will file a
complaint against A and he died and the action is one which survives. If you file a case against a
defendant who is being summoned and while the case is pending, he died and the action is one
which survives, the procedure is that the lawyer will supply the court with the name of the legal
heirs or his representatives for the purpose of SUBSTITUTION. We have learned that. Let us
say X is his legal representative. Is there a need for another summons on X who substituted the
deceased defendant? NO. What is sufficient is that he is served with a copy of the order of the
court directing that he be substituted as the new defendant. In the first place, he is not really a
new defendant. He is only a continuation of the personality of the deceased defendant. So, that
is different from changing or adding a defendant. In the second case, there is no new defendant
but merely a continuation of the personality of the deceased defendant.

BAR QUESTION: The plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant B who was served
with summons. Plaintiff amended his complaint. Is there a necessity of another summons to be
served on the defendant on the amended complaint? Or, is the summons on the original
complaint sufficient? Anyway, it is the same defendant and he was already summoned.

ANSWER: Based on jurisprudence, you distinguish. It depends on whether the

defendant has already appeared in the action after the service of summons on the original
complaint. What do you mean by appeared in the action? The best example there is when he
has already filed an answer. If there is still no answer to the original complaint, and the plaintiff
amended his complaint, it is still a matter of right. According to the SC, there must be a new
summons on the amended complaint. But if the defendant has already filed an answer to the
original complaint, this time it is no longer a matter of right, there is no need of serving new
summons on the amended complaint. All that the plaintiff has to do is serve a copy of the
amended complaint to the defendant.

So we will tie this up with Rule 11 on Period to Answer. If the defendant was served
with summons on the original complaint and before he could answer, the complaint was
amended by the plaintiff, there must be another summons to be served on the amended complaint
and the defendant has 15 days all over again to file an answer to the amended complaint. But if
the defendant has already filed an answer to the original complaint, there is no need of issuing
another summons. All that plaintiff has to do is serve a copy of the amended complaint on the
defendant. And once the court admits the amended complaint, going back to Rule 11, the
defendant has only 10 days from service of the order admitting the amended complaint to file his
answer. And the law further says that if defendant will not file his answer to the amended
complaint, his answer to the original complaint will be considered already as his answer to the
amended complaint.

PAN ASIA TRAVEL VS CA

164 S 263

Ruling: Appearance in the action is not only limited to the filing of an

answer. When defendant files a motion for extension of time to file his answer,
 that is already appearance in the action. If the defendant files a motion for bill of
particulars under Rule 12 that is already considered an appearance in the action.

Sec. 3. By whom served. - The summons may be served by the sheriff, his
deputy, or other proper court officer, or for justifiable reasons by any suitable
person authorized by the court issuing the summons. (5a)

Summons is served by the sheriff who is actually a court employee, or his deputy or
other court officer. Meaning, one of the employees there in the clerk of court. Or, for justifiable
reasons, by any suitable person authorized by the court issuing the summons. Suppose, I will
sue somebody who lives at the top of Mt. Apo. I don’t think any sheriff would bother to go
there. But the court can deputize the barangay captain to serve the summons. Turuan lang siya
anong gawin niya. And that could be a valid service of summons. Because the law says xxx for
justifiable reasons, by any suitable person xxx.

Before, may complaint which had to be served in Brgy. Tapak, Paquibato. Have you
heard of that place? It is still part of Davao City but I don't think you have been there. To go
there you have to pass to Panabo first. You have to get out of Davao City and then re-enter
Davao City and then up to certain point land, maglakad na ng isang araw before you can reach
that place. Mag-horse back ka. Makita mo doon mga natives. I don’t think a sheriff would
bother to go there. Baka mawala pa siya. He has not even heard of the place. So, he can
recommend a barangay captain or a policeman. These are abnormal situations.

Like in the case of SIQUITO vs. LETRONDO L11580, July 20, 1959, a policeman
served summons to a defendant. The issue was whether the policeman was authorized to serve
summons. The SC said no. the policeman is not a sheriff. He is not a deputy or other court
officer. A policeman belongs to the PNP which is not part of the judiciary but of the executive.
Therefore, he is not authorized. But suppose, yung lugar na yon wala talagang ibang authorized.
The policeman or the chief of police there is the only one who can reach that place. No problem.
The court has to issue an order deputizing or authorizing the same. But without such authority,
by itself, he is not a person covered by Sec. 3.

Summons, its ministerial character

Suppose, a sheriff cannot find you at daytime. Everytime he looks for you, wala ka
because gabi ka na umuuwi. Or, probably you are working outside of Davao City so you only
come home during weekends. So, what the sheriff will do, puntahan ka niya sa gabi to serve the
summons. Or, during Saturdays and Sundays kung saan walang opisina. Is there a valid service
considering the fact that the summons will be served not during office hours or a regular working
day?
The SC said yes. That was the ruling in the case of:

LAOS vs. CA
219 SCRA 688

Service of summons may be made at night as well as during the day or

even on a Sunday or holiday because of its ministerial character. There is nothing
 so complicated here. You just serve him a copy and then ask him to acknowledge
receipt. And in most cases, if you really cannot be served during daytime or
working day, and that is the only feasible time where you may be served, there is
nothing wrong there. You cannot challenge the validity of the service on that
ground.

Sheriff’s return

Sec. 4. Return. - When the service has been completed, the server shall,
within five (5) days therefrom, serve a copy of the return, personally or by
registered mail, to the plaintiff’s counsel, and shall return the summons to the
clerk who issued it, accompanied by proof of service. (6a)

The duty of the sheriff after service of summons is that he should make a report to the
court as to what happened. That is what is called a sheriff’s return. Respectfully returned to the
court with the information that defendant was personally served with summons on this date and
on this time as shown by his signature on the face of this original copy. Or, respectfully returned
to the court with the information that defendant cannot be served with summons because the
defendant had already moved from the address indicated in the complaint and therefore he
cannot be located. Then, you furnish the plaintiff with the copy of the return so that his counsel
will know what to do next. How can the lawyer count the 15-day period? Unless he will also
know if service had been made and the outcome thereof. If I am the plaintiff, I will count the 15
days from your receipt. That is the reason behind Sec. 4.

Alias summons

Sec. 5. Issuance of alias summons.- If a summons is returned without being

served on any or all of the defendants, the server shall also serve a copy of the
return on the plaintiff’s counsel, stating the reasons for the failure of service,
within five (5) days therefrom. In such a case, or if the summons has been lost, the
clerk, on demand of the plaintiff, may issue an alias summons. (4a)

If you cannot serve any or all of the defendants, the court server shall serve a copy of the
return on plaintiff’s counsel stating that there was failure of service. Or, nawala ang summons.
in such a case, the clerk of court on demand of the plaintiff will issue an alias summons. That is
what we call the second summons. Maybe, alam mo na ang new address, so will ask the clerk of
court to issue an alias summons on the new address of defendant.

Modes of service of summons

How is summons served? What are the modes of service of summons? That is one of the
most important questions in the bar. Summons for individual defendants or natural persons.
There are three (3) general ways of service of summons:

1. Service in person - Sec. 6

2. Substituted service - Sec. 7
3. Service by publication - Secs. 14, 15 & 16
 Let us discuss them one by one. Under the ‘64 Rules, the first mode of service is called
personal service. Now, it is termed service in person. Pareho man ang meaning nila. I was
intrigued so I asked a member of the committee which drafted the rules. Bakit pinalitan ninyo
from personal service to service in person? Reason: In order not to confuse personal service of
summons in Rule 14 with personal service of other documents in Rule 13. True, they are often
confused with each other. Sometimes a question is asked about summons, ang sagot is based on
the provisions of Rule 13. Even the fourth year, during their last exam, I noticed that. Rule 13
applies to everything except summons. Kaya nga it is governed by Rule 14. Pero yung service
of answer, motions, judgments, etc., Rule 13. So, that was the reason for the change of term.
Sabi ko, dapat yung Sec. 7, sinali na rin. Meron man ding substituted service sa Rule 13 under
Sec. 8. So, there is still confusion.

1st mode - Service in person

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. (7a)

The summons must be served in person. This is literal, ha. No substitute. To the
defendant mismo. Hindi puwedeng ibigay sa asawa, sa anak or sa kasama sa bahay. And the
law does not care where to do it. Suppose I am the sheriff, I’m looking for the defendant to serve
the summons. Nakita ko ang defendant kumakain sa isang restaurant. nilapitan ko. Sir, I’ve
been looking for you, hindi kita makita. I will serve the summons to you now. Ah, hindi, hindi.
Punta ka sa bahay. Hindi na ako magpunta sa bahay ninyo. Nandito ka na, eh. Punta ako sa
inyo, hindi kita makita. Tapos, here you are. I can even do it at night, any day because of the
LAOS ruling. Yes, because that is literal.

Do not confuse that with the previous rule. Di ba service to a party can be done through
his employee of the lawyer. But this time, service must be made in person. Halimbawa, ayaw
magtanggap. Dili ko mudawat. Naa may ingon ana. Akala nila, pag hindi nila tinanggap, they
will not be bound. No, the law says if he refuses receive and sign for it, by tendering it to him.
Tendering means offer. Meaning, ayaw mo? Bahala ka basta bigyan kita. Ayaw mong mag-
pirma? Well, I will just tell the court. I gave it to you and you refused to acknowledge. Or, I
was handing it to you and you refused to accept. And you are automatically bound. So, the
common impression of laymen na pagdili nila dawaton, dili sila masabit. No, that is of course
false. You cannot defeat a court process by refusing to accept it. May mga sheriff pa nga na
bastos. Dili ka magtanggap? Basta ilagay ko ito sa tabi mo, i-report ko sa court na binigyan kita,
ayaw mong tanggapin, ayaw mong mag-pirma. Bahala ka maski i-ilo pa na nimo. And under
the law, from that moment, you are bound. So, matakot man yang defendant ba. Kunin niya yun
tapos mag-consult siya ng lawyer. Tapos, his lawyer will tell him na he is bound despite his
refusal to accept it.

2nd mode - Substituted service

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. (8a)

Suppose, I cannot serve you the summons personally. I cannot find you. Balik-balik ako
hindi kita maabutan. Palagi kang wala. But everytime I go there, your wife or husband is
around. I can leave the summons with your wife or husband because the law says xxx (a) by
leaving copies of the summons at the defendant’s residence with some person of suitable age and
discretion then residing therein xxx. So, it can be the wife or the husband. Housemaid or
houseboy, puwede rin kasi doon man yan nakatira. Provided he is of suitable age and discretion.
Puwede sa anak? Yes, again basta of suitable age and discretion. Ang sheriff kailangang
tantiyahin din niya. Ito bang anak may buot na ni or wala pa?

Now, do not follow what happened in the case of SIQUITO vs. LETRONDO, July 20,
1959 where the sheriff served the summons to defendant’s daughter who was 10 years old, nasa
grade 4 pa lang. The court said that there is no valid service because the defendant’s daughter is
not a person of suitable age and discretion. It must be done on a case to case basis.

This time, place is important. Sa bahay talaga. Or, if not the residence xxx (b) by
leaving the copies at defendant’s office or regular place of business with some competent person
in charge thereof. Sinong in charge sa office like the manager, foreman, etc. Sa office mo i-
serve. So, the place is important. It is either the residence or place of work or office.

Now, do not confuse this with the previous rule. Let us read Sec. 6, Rule 13.

Sec. 6. Personal service. - Service of the papers may be made by delivering

personally a copy to the party or his counsel, or by leaving it in his office with his
clerk or with a person having charge thereof. If no person is found in his office,
or his office is not known, or he has no office, then by leaving the copy, between
the hours of eight in the morning and six in the evening, at the party’s or
counsel’s residence, if known, with a person of sufficient age and discretion then
residing therein. (4a)

In Rule 13, that is known as personal service. In Rule 14, that is known as substituted
service. Service of summons is governed by a different rule from service of pleadings,
judgments and other papers. Now, what is substituted service in Rule 13? Let us go back to Sec.
18, Rule 13.

Sec. 8. Substituted service. - If service of pleadings, motions, notices,

resolutions, orders and other papers cannot be made under the two preceding
sections, the office and place of residence of the party or his counsel being
unknown, service may be made by delivering the copy to the clerk of court, with
proof of failure of both personal service and service by mail. The service is
complete at the time of such delivery. (6a)

In Rule 14, substituted service means if you cannot serve the defendant in person, then
you serve the summons at the residence of the defendant with some person of suitable age and
discretion residing therein or by leaving copies at the defendant’s office or regular place of
business with some competent person in charge thereof. That is substituted service of summons.
 But in Rule 13, substituted service of other pleadings, judgments, orders, etc., if personal
service or service by registered mail have failed, then serve it on the clerk of court. And that is
known as substituted service. So, iba ang meaning. That is why I am emphasizing this to avoid
confusion. Nakakalito, eh because of the similarity of terms. Substituted service of summons in
Rule 14 is different from substituted service of pleadings, judgments and other papers in Rule
13.

Now, take note on this. Suppose a sheriff, for the first time will go to defendant’s house.
Kakatok. Where is defendant A? Sabi ng asawa: Wala, nasa Maynila. Kailan magbalik?
Tonight. If you want. Come back tomorrow. Sino ka pala? I am the wife. I would like to serve
summons to you. So, the sheriff resorted to substituted service. Is there a valid service of
summons? The SC said there is none because under the law, substituted service can only be
resorted to if for justifiable causes the defendant cannot be served within a reasonable time.
Meaning, there must be more than one attempt at personal service. First time pa lang nag-fail ka
to serve in person, you resort kaagad to substituted service?

So, what is the principle to remember? A sheriff cannot resort to substituted service
unless there were previous attempts to serve the defendant in person but for justifiable causes, he
cannot be served within a reasonable time. And according to jurisprudence, when a sheriff
resorts to substituted service of summons under Rule 14, he makes a return, no. Naturally he has
to state there and justify why service in person cannot be done. Maybe he will say I tried to
serve him in person 10 times pabalik-balik pero hindi ko makita. Yan siguro. otherwise, the
service is defective.

MAPA vs. CA
214 SCRA 417

Impossibility of personal service should be shown by stating the efforts

made to find the defendant personally and the fact that such efforts failed. These
statements should be made in the proof of service. This is necessary because
substituted service is in derogation of the usual method of service.

TOYOTA CUBAO INC. VS CA

October 23, 1997

Ruling: A law prescribing the manner in which the service of summons should be
effected is jurisdictional in character and its proper observance is what dictates the
court’s ability to take cognizance of the litigation before it. Compliance therewith
must appear affirmatively in the return. It must so be as substitute service is the
mode that departs or deviates from the standard rule. Substitute service must be
used only in the way prescribed, and under circumstances authorized by law.

Meaning, what is preferred by law is service in person. Substituted service is not the
rule. It is the exception. It does not necessarily mean that since the sheriff did not explain that
personal service was tried then the service is void. He can still prove in court, no. Actually, I
tried serve many times. Hindi ko lang nalagay sa report ko. Okay lang man, ba. But there is a
presumption that the sheriff did not do his job. Kailangan, ilagay niya sa report niya. That was
the ruling in the case of Mapa.

3rd mode - Service by publication (Sec. 14)

Now, we will jump immediately to the third mode of service known as service of
summons by publication which was already touched in the previous rules. Going back to Sec. 9,
Rule 13:

Sec. 9. Service of judgments, final orders or resolutions. - Judgments, final

orders or resolutions shall be served either personally or by registered mail.
When a party summoned by publication has failed to appear in the action,
judgments, final orders or resolutions against him shall be served upon him also
by publication at the expense of the prevailing party. (7a)

When a party summoned by publication has failed to appear in the action, meaning the
defendant failed to file an answer, the decision can also be served upon him by publication.
Question: What are the instances where a defendant may be served with summons by
publication? Answer: Sections 14, 15 & 16 of Rule 14. And the first one is service upon
defendant whose identity or whereabouts are unknown. That is what you call suing an unknown
defendant. Or, the defendant is known pero hindi na makita. He may be in Davao, Cebu or in
Manila. Balita-balita lang. But definitely, he is in the Philippines. That is the important
condition. So, let us read Sec. 14:

Service by publication, Sec. 14

Unknown defendant or his whereabouts is unknown

Sec. 14. Service upon defendant whose identity or whereabouts are unknown. -
In any action where the defendant is designated as an unknown owner, or the like,
or whenever his whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent
inquiry, service may, by leave of court, be effected upon him by publication in a
newspaper of general circulation and in such places and for such time as the court
may order. (16a)

Whenever the defendant is designated as an unknown owner, or the like, or whenever his
whereabouts are unknown, but he is in the Philippines, but his exact address hindi mo alam, and
cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry, talagang mahirap hanapin, service may by leave of
court, so there must be a motion, be effected upon him by publication. Saang newspaper? Of
general circulation. Hindi naman kailangan sa Daily Inquirer. Puwede man sa local paper, ba.
And in such places and for such time as the court may order. For example, sabihin mo: We
learned that he is in Cebu pero saan sa Cebu, we do not know. The court may order the
publication to be published in a local newspaper of general circulation in Cebu. Of course,
kasama diyan ang complaint. How many times? Bahala na ang court. Say, tatlong issues. So,
every Monday for three weeks. Basta the presumption is mabasa yan ng defendant or at least
somebody who must have read it will inform the defendant. So, the law requires that you must
file a motion and ask the court to allow service of summons by publication.

Sec. 14, Rule 14 of the 1964 Rules vs.

Sec. 16, Rule 14 of 1997 Rules

Actually, the counterpart of Sec. 14 under the ‘64 Rules is Rule 14, Sec. 16. Ngayon, it’s
Rule 14, Sec. 14 with an amendment. The amendment is very slight but to my mind, there is still
a question mark as to what it is all about. Under the ‘64 Rules, it says:

Sec. 16. Service upon an unknown defendant. - Whenever the defendant is

designated as an unknown owner, or the like, or whenever the address of a
defendant is unknown and cannot be ascertained with diligent inquiry, service
may, by leave of court, be effected upon him by publication in a newspaper
of general circulation and in such places and for such time as the court may order.

What did you notice? The word whenever is changed to in any action. Is that a change
of form only or a change of substance? Because the answer to that question will depend. If a
problem will be given to you and if you believe that the change in the language of the law is only
as to form, then the answer now to that question before is also the same answer to the question
now. But, if the change is substantial, an answer to the question before will be different from the
answer to the same problem today.

Actually, I emphasized this to the fourth year. And during their exam. I gave them a
problem precisely to find out how they will answer. The problem is some did not see the point.
But some saw it. Those who answered the service of summons is valid based on the language of
the present law, I considered 100% correct. Those who said the service of summons was not
valid because of jurisprudence, I also considered as 100% correct. Either one is correct basta
alam mo ang dahilan. In other words, you can argue. Parang debate ito, eh. Now, I will cite the
jurisprudence under the old law so you will understand it better. The language of the old law is:
Whenever the defendant is designated as an unknown owner, or the like, or whenever the address
of a defendant is unknown and cannot be ascertained with diligent inquiry, service may, by leave
of court, be effected upon him by publication in a newspaper of general circulation and in such
places and for such time as the court may order.

This is the hypothetical problem just like the question I asked in the fourth year. B
borrowed money from A. Then B, hindi na makita. One day, A was informed that B was
somewhere in Davao City. So, A asked the court that he be allowed to serve summons by
publication in order to pursue his collection case. The court granted the motion. And the
summons against B was published in Davao City in Sunstar Davao. There was no answer. B
was declared in default and there was a judgment against him. Later on, when the judgment was
enforced against B, B questioned the service of summons by publication against him.
According to defendant, he has never read the newspaper, therefore he is not bound by it. He
should have been served personally. Is he correct? Was there a valid service of summons by
publication?

I will cite the history of this issue. In the very first case where that issue came out was
the case of:

FONTANILLA vs. DOMINGUEZ

73 PHIL 579

The SC said there was a valid service of summons. What kind of action is
filed by plaintiff against defendant? An action to collect an unpaid loan. Is that
 an action in personam or an action in rem? Of course, that is an action in
personam. The court said: Service of summons by publication on a defendant
who is in the Philippines but whose exact address is unknown is valid whatever
the nature of the action is. Whether it is in personam or in rem. The SC said:
Service of summons by publication is proper in all actions without distinction
provided that the defendant is residing in the Philippines but his identity is
unknown or his address cannot be ascertained.

However, this pronouncement was reversed in the later case of:

PANTALEON vs. ASUNCION

105 PHIL 765

The SC ruled that when the defendant is in the country and his address is
unknown and you apply summons by publication under Sec. 14 (old rules),
service of summons by publication is allowed provided the action is in rem.
Therefore, if the action is in personam, there is no valid service of summons by
publication.

The SC said: It is a well settled principle in Constitutional Law that an

action strictly in personam personal service of summons within the forum,
(meaning within the Philippines) is essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction over
the person of the defendant who does not voluntarily submit himself to the
authority of the court. In other words, summons by publication cannot
consistently with the due process clause in the Bill of Rights confer upon the court
jurisdiction over said defendant.

In other words, if the defendant was not personally notified about the case, and we will
only presume he read the paper, that is tantamount to depriving him of his property without due
process of law. So nagkaroon ng conflict, no. So, Sec. 14, based on the Pantaleon ruling applies
only when the action is in rem and not when it is in personam. Now, the third case was:

CITIZEN’S SURETY & INSURANCE CO. vs. MELENCIO-HERRERA

38 SCRA 369

The SC reiterated the ruling in Pantaleon that you can only Sec. 14 if the
action is in rem or at least quasi in rem. There is no service of summons by
publication when the action is in personam. So, paano na yung creditor na
gustong mag-file ng kaso against debtor and he cannot effect service of summons
by publication? The SC said that there is still a way. How? By converting the
action from in personam to at least quasi in rem. Pagna-convert mo na, you can
now move for service of summons by publication. Because you cannot acquire
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, so you acquire jurisdiction
over the res. How do you convert the case from one in personam to one in rem?
The SC said you look any property of the defendant which you can attach. Kahit
bisikleta lang. Kahit anong property ma-attach. Have it attached under Rule 57,
Sec. 1(f) which we shall take up later. Now, pagna-attach na ang property, you
now have a lien over the property. Pag may lien na, the action is now considered
as an action quasi in rem. You can now ask the court to allow you to resort to
summons by publication.
 The court could not validly acquire jurisdiction over a non-appearing
defendant absent a personal service of summons within the forum. The proper
recourse for a creditor in the same situation as petitioner is to locate properties
real or personal of the resident defendant Delnor with unknown address and
caused them to be attached under Rule 57, Sec. 1(f). In which case, the
attachment converts the action into a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem and
summons by publication may then accordingly be deemed valid and effective.

The fourth case which is the most exhaustive, and this case I advise you to read because
the court summarized everything from Fontanilla to Pantaleon is the case of:

MAGDALENA ESTATE vs. NIETO

125 SCRA 758

Ano ang correct? When the action is in personam, hindi puwede. The
action must be in rem. If it is in personam, better convert it. That’s the rule no.

And even after Magdalena Estate, there were still other cases where the SC came out with
the same ruling. One of them which originated here in Davao City was:

CONSOLIDATED PLYWOOD IND. vs. BREVA

166 SCRA 589

The action filed against Consolidated was in personam. Summons by

publication was made. There was a judgment against defendant. Thereafter,
defendant questioned the validity of the judgment as there was no valid service of
summons. The SC quoted the ruling in Magdalena Estate that there was no valid
service of summons under Sec. 14.

So, that is the standing jurisprudence. But I noticed under the new rules, as worded now,
it starts with the phrase in any action where the defendant xxx. Noon, whenever the defendant
xxx. Ano ang ibig sabihin ng in any action? Whether it is in personam or in rem? Is that the
intention? If that is the intention, then the ruling in Magdalena is obsolete, abandoned. Citizen’s
Surety is also obsolete. Pantaleon is obsolete. And we are going back to Fontanilla where the
SC said that service of summons by publication applies to any action whether in personam or in
rem. That is the effect.

Hindi nga klaro, eh. It is a very minor amendment but to my mind, it created a lot of
confusion. Sabi nga ni Justice Feria sa commentaries niya: Take note that Sec. 14 says in any
action. However, there are rulings of the SC that Sec. 14 applies only to actions in rem. In other
words, he himself has not clarified things. Sana sinabi niya: Despite the phrase in any action,
the intention of the law is still to follow jurisprudence. Or, the intention of the law is to abandon
these rulings. Kaya, to my mind, controversial ito. Parang slight lang sa unang tingin but the
effect is substantial. So, baka when you reach fourth year, the SC will have a clearer explanation
to this.

Service by publication, Sec. 15

Extraterritorial service
 Of the three instances where summons by publication may be allowed, Sec. 15 is the
most famous:

Sec. 15. Extraterritorial service. - When the defendant does not reside and is
not found in the Philippines, and the action affects the personal status of the
plaintiff or relates to, or the subject of which is, property within the Philippines, in
which the defendant has or claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent, or in
which the relief demanded consists, wholly or in part, in excluding the defendant
from any interest therein, or the property of the defendant has been attached
within the Philippines, service may, by leave of court, be effected out of the
Philippines by personal service as under section 6; or by publication in a
newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such time as the court
may order, in which case a copy of the summons and order of the court shall be
sent by registered mail to the last known address of the defendant, or in any other
manner the court may deem sufficient. Any order granting such leave shall
specify a reasonable time, which shall not be less than sixty (60) days after notice,
within which the defendant must answer. (17a)

What is the difference between the defendant here and the defendant in Sec. 14. The
defendant in Sec. 14 is within the Philippines, only he is unknown or his whereabouts are
unknown. Definitely, he is here. In Sec. 15, the defendant does not reside in the Philippines. He
is already abroad. And he is not even in the Philippines temporarily. Iba yung nagbabakasyon
lang or balikbayan. So, the defendant does not reside and is not found in the Philippines.
Can you sue a defendant who is not residing here and who is not even physically around?
We already met that question in Rule 4 on Venue. And we said yes, provided the action is in
rem like the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff or the action affects the property of
said defendant in the Philippines. Let us go back to Rule 4, Sec. 3 because it is talking of the
same defendant.

Sec. 3. Venue of actions against nonresidents. - If any of the defendants does

not reside and is not found in the Philippines, and the action affects the personal
status of the plaintiff, or any property of said defendant located in the
Philippines, the action may be commenced and tried in the court of the place
where the plaintiff resides, or where the property or any portion thereof is
situated or found. (2[c]a)

So, according to Rule 4, Sec. 3, where the defendant does not reside and is not found in
the Philippines, but the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff or any property of the
defendant located in the Philippines, he can be sued. And the venue is where the plaintiff resides
or where the property is situated. So, at least the action is in rem. Going back to Rule 14, Sec.
15, now it is more specific.

Here is the first question: In what instances where a non-resident defendant who is not
found in the Philippines be sued in Philippines court? To answer that, let us break up Sec. 15:

The defendant who does not reside and is not found in the Philippines may be sued:

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 has or claims a lien or interest,
actual or contingent;
3. when the action relates to or the subject of which is, property within
the Philippines in which the relief demanded consists, wholly or in part,
in excluding the defendant from any interest therein; or
4. when the property of the defendant has been attached within the
Philippines.

Take note that in all these four instances, the action is in rem or quasi in rem. The
property is attached. So, with that, that seems the common denominator between Sec. 15 and the
previous section following the Nieto ruling. Again, the difference between Sec. 14 and Sec. 15
is that in Sec. 14, the defendant is in the country but he cannot be found. In Sec. 15, defendant is
no longer in the Philippines and he cannot be found. Ang similarity nila, in both cases, the
action must be classified as in rem or quasi in rem. That is if we follow the Magdalena Estate
ruling.

The second question is: How do you effect service of summons extraterritorialy?
Because this is what you call extraterritorial service of summons. Going back to Sec. 15, service
of extraterritorial summons are effected by leave of court by:
1. by personal service as under section 6;
2. by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places
and for such time as the court may order, in which case a copy of the
summons and order of the court shall be sent by registered mail to the
last known address of the defendant; or
3. in any other manner the court may deem sufficient.

I want to sue my kumpare to recover a piece of land from him. The property is in the
Philippines. But he migrated years ago to California and he never came back. I can sue him
because nandito man yung kanyang lupa. So, how do I serve him the summons?

1 - Personal service of summons

The first way is by personal service as under Sec. 6. The court will order that he will be
served with summons just like in Sec. 6. Paano? Siguro, I will tell the sheriff to go to the States
to serve the summons. Bigyan ko siya ng visa, round trip ticket with pocket money. Lipay
kaayo ang sheriff niana. That is personal service. But that is very expensive. That could be done
pero impractical. Or, may isang balikbayan, kaibigan ko. I will ask him to serve the summons to
the defendant. Pumayag naman. So, I will file a motion in court that the defendant be served
with summons personally. My friend, the balikbayan, will serve. Di ba, we learned last night
who can serve summons? The Sheriff, proper court officer, or any person especially
authorized. Puwede. Or the third possibility as stated by the SC in one case, the very recent case
of VALMONTE (which we will take up later) where the Philippine court will course the
summons to the Philippine Embassy or the Philippine Consulate. The Philippine court will order
send the summons to the Philippine Consulate with the instruction to its personnel to serve the
summons to this Filipino citizen who is at this address. That is personal service.

2 - By publication
 The second manner is by publication which is similar to Sec. 14. the court will order the
summons and complaint to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and
for such time as the court may order. In which case a copy of the summons and order of the
court shall be sent by registered mail to the last known address of the defendant. So, aside from
publication, another copy will be sent by registered mail to his last known address. Doble-doble
no? Meron ng publication, meron pang registered mailing of copy.

There were some interesting cases decided by the SC on the second mode (by
publication) which decisions are still valid.

SAHAGON vs. CA
198 SCRA 44

The defendant who was in LA was summoned by publication. And the

Philippine court ordered the summons to be published in a Philippine Newspaper.
The defendant questioned the publication saying that it should be in LA where he
resides. He argued that the what the law contemplates is that publication should
also be in the place where defendant is residing. Is that correct?

The SC said no. There is nothing in Sec. 15 that it should be in a

newspaper of general circulation in a foreign place. Ang sinasabi ng law is
publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such time
as the court may order. If we will require the trial court to publish the summons
in a foreign newspaper, then we will have to expect all Philippine courts to have a
list of all newspapers in LA. Not only that, the courts have to know the pertinent
laws regarding publication of said notice and how much. Every court must have
these data. And suppose, is in San Francisco. Or he is in Paris. Naloko na.
Imagine the trouble? It is requiring the court too much.

Here’s a third point I want to discuss in the case of Sahagon. Suppose the defendant is
abroad, he is not found in the Philippines and he is summoned under Sec. 15. Like personal
service or by publication. There is a third one but we will discuss that later. Now, because of
Sec. 15, can you say now that the court has acquired jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant? Definitely he can be sued. But when summons is served extraterritorialy pursuant to
Sec. 15, has the Philippine court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the non-resident
defendant?

The court has not acquired jurisdiction. Because he is outside the country. Kahit anong
gawin natin, hindi talaga. Even if he is served with summons, our processes have no effect
outside Philippine territory. But still, if after going through all this trouble, the court still has not
acquired jurisdiction over his person, my question now is: Para saan pala ang trabaho na ito?
Kapoy-kapoy lang ko diay. Hindi pa rin pala maka-acquire ng jurisdiction ang court. The
purpose of this is not for the court to acquire jurisdiction over his person but for the purpose of
complying with the due process clause of the Bill of Rights. That no person shall be deprived of
his property without due process of law. Notice of hearing lang ito. Actually, hindi man
kailangan ang jurisdiction over your person. That is not what is important. Ang importante is
the res is in the country so we can enforce the judgment. So ownership may be transferred to
plaintiff. So, hindi kailangan ang jurisdiction over his person.
 That has been emphasized by the SC in the Sahagon case. The purpose of extraterritorial
service under Sec. 15 is compliance with the due process clause of the Constitution. That
defendant may be informed of the pendency of the action and the possibility of losing his
property. He is given the chance to defend himself, if he wants to. How will he defend himself?
By hiring a lawyer. Laban tayo. The lawyer will of course file an answer. If you do that, the
court has now acquired jurisdiction over your person by voluntary appearance. Pero kung ayaw
mong mag-answer, okay lang.

In the case of Sahagon, where the action filed was recovery of land with damages, and
summons by publication was made, the SC said it can render judgment against the property but
the court cannot order him to pay the claim for damages because that is in personam. But if he
got a lawyer and filed his answer, then, he is now submitting himself to the jurisdiction of the
court and there could be a valid judgment on the property and the damages. The only relief that
may be granted in such an action against such a non-resident defendant who does not choose to
submit himself to the jurisdiction of Philippine court is limited to the res. Yung damages, wala.
In personam, eh. Pero, if he files an answer, tuloy-tuloy na yan. This time, there could be a
valid judgment upon the res and the damages.

3 - In any other manner the court may deem sufficient

The third manner is very broad. Let us cite an instance where the court resorted to
service of summons abroad not personally nor by publication and yet it was considered as validly
made pursuant to the third mode.

CARIAGA JR. vs. MALAYA

143 SCRA 441

A minor through the natural mother filed a case against his biological
father who is now abroad for compulsory recognition to improve the status of the
child from illegitimate to legitimate child. The complaint was filed declaring the
child as a pauper litigant. So, because the child could not cause to serve the
summons either personally or by publication because of his poor status, the court
allowed the same to be served by registered mail. The defendant received it and
questioned the mode of service of summons because according to him, it was not
in accordance with Sec. 15.

The SC said the service of summons made by registered mail may fall
under the phrase in any other manner the court may deem sufficient. The
defendant received the summons. Meaning, he was notified. The requirement of
due process was met. Technicalities was set aside.

If you ask me, as a general rule, there is no such thing as service of summons by
registered mail. It is allowed under Rule 13 for pleadings, motions, judgments, etc. But under
Rule 14, as a general rule, summons cannot be served by registered mail. It must only be either
personal or substituted or by publication. But because of the phrase in any other manner the
court may deem sufficient, the court sanctioned it.

The last sentence reads: Any order granting such leave shall specify a reasonable time,
which shall not be less than sixty (60) days after notice, within which the defendant must answer.
Take note that in extraterritorial service, the period to answer may be longer. It is not only 15
days. Definitely, it should not be less than 50 days. Let us go back to Rule 11, Sec. 1:

Sec. 1. Answer to the complaint. - The defendant shall file his answer to the
complaint within fifteen (15) days after service of summons, unless a different
period is fixed by the court. (1a)

Yes, unless a different period is fixed by the court. And a perfect example to this is
Secs. 14 and 15. Most especially Sec. 15 because these are abnormal situations. And take note
that the similarity between Secs. 14 & 15 is that there must always be a leave of court. A
motion. How is this done? Let us jump to Sec. 17:

Sec. 17. Leave of court. - Any application to the court under this Rule for leave
to effect service in any manner for which leave of court is necessary shall be
made by motion in writing, supported by affidavit of the plaintiff or some
person on his behalf, setting forth the grounds for the application. (19)

So, a motion in writing, supported by affidavit and setting forth the grounds for the
application. On January 22, 1996, the SC had a very interesting case on Sec. 15, about service of
summons, the case of:

VALMONTE vs. CA
252 SCRA 92

Lourdes Valmonte is a foreign resident. Her husband, Alfredo Valmonte

is also her lawyer and holds office in the Philippines. Obviously, the husband is
commuting to and fro. (I think he is the same Valmonte in the case of Valmonte
vs. De Villa on validity of check points.) The sister of Lourdes filed a case
against her for partition of real property. So, this is an action in quasi in rem. The
summons intended for Lourdes was served on her husband in the latter’s law
office. Was there a valid service of summons upon Lourdes who is residing
abroad but whose husband is here and has a law office? Can the summons be
served on the husband? Para bang substituted service.

The SC said: There is no valid service of summons. First of all, the action
is partition of real property which is in the nature of an action quasi in rem. As
Lourdes Valmonte is a non-resident, who is not found in the Philippines, service
of summons on her must be in accordance with Sec. 15. Under Sec. 15, there are
3 ways to effect service of summons. Personal, publication and any other manner.
The service was not personal. It was not by publication. Will it fall under the 3rd
manner?

The SC said: Since the case at bar, service of summons was not done by
means of any of the first 2 modes, the question is whether the service on her
attorney and her husband can be justified under the third mode namely in any
other manner the court may deem sufficient? It cannot fall under the third mode
because the 3rd mode of service of summons presumes that the defendant is
abroad. Meaning, you serve the summons in any other manner abroad. Not in
any manner in the Philippines. In this case, the summons was served in the
Philippines. So, it cannot fall under the 3rd mode. Just like the first two, the
 service should be made outside the Philippines such as to the Philippine Embassy
of the foreign country where the defendant resides. That was the first reason.

The second is: How do you serve summons on a non-resident defendant?

There must be leave of court. Nobody filed a motion in this case. Service of
summons made by the plaintiff to defendant’s husband was without leave of
court as required by Sec. 15 as provided in Sec. 17 where such leave must be
applied for in writing, supported by affidavits, etc.

And the more important reason is that since defendant is abroad, the law
guarantees him 60 days to file an answer. But here, she was only given 15 days.
Therefore, there is a premature declaration of default. She was not given ample
time to file her answer which according to the rules shall not be less than 60 days
after notice. It must be noted that the failure to file an answer in an action against
a resident defendant differs from the period in an action filed against a non-
resident defendant who is not found in the Philippines. In the former, the period
is 15 days from service of summons. In the latter, it is at least 60 days. For these
reasons, the court ruled that there was no proper service of summons on Lourdes
Valmonte.

Very interesting case. Very analytical. Secs. 15, 17, etc. nandiyan na, eh.

Service by publication, Sec. 16

Residents temporarily abroad

Sec. 16. Residents temporarily out of the Philippines. - When any action is
commenced against a defendant who ordinarily resides within the Philippines, but
who is temporarily out of it, service may, by leave of court, be also effected out of
the Philippines, as under the preceding section. (18a)

The defendant in Sec. 15 is not a resident of the Philippines and is not found in the
Philippines while the defendant in Sec. 16, he is residing here but is temporarily out. Example is
if you’re out of the country, nagsuroy-suroy lang, tapos a case is filed against you. How will
summons be served upon you during the period of your absence?
In the same manner that a non-resident defendant who is outside is served. So, personal service,
by publication, and in any other manner.

If you want to wait for his return, then walang gasto. You will serve your summons hindi
extraterritorial. Personal service.

MONTALBAN vs. MAXIMO

A sued B. B is from the Philippines pero nag-tour. So, when the sheriff
went to the house of B somewhere in Makati, katulong lang ang nandoon who
 informed him that B was on a world tour. Ang balik is mga 4-5 months pa.
Sinerve ng sheriff ang summons doon sa katulong. The service of summons was
done by leaving it in the house of the defendant to a person of suitable age and
discretion residing therein. So, substituted service. Can substituted service of
summons be applied to a defendant who is residing in the Philippines but
temporarily out? Because under Sec. 16, summons may also be effected under
Sec. 15. But here, the summons was served under Sec. 7.

The SC said substituted service of summons is proper. We learned that

substituted service may be properly resorted to by the sheriff only if for justifiable
causes, the defendant cannot be served in person within a reasonable time. And in
this case, defendant cannot be served within a reasonable time because he is
abroad. To serve him personally, you have to wait for him 4-5 months more. so,
the sheriff was justified in resorting to substituted service.

The lesson here in the case of Montalban is that if defendant ordinarily resides in the
Philippines but is temporarily out, he can be served with summons just like a non-resident
defendant under Sec. 15 but he can also be served with summons under Sec. 7. That is the
important principle there. But there is something more beyond that.

In the case of Montalban, tinanggap nga yung summons ng katulong.

Nag-lapse ang 15 days, no answer. Default judgment. Naging final. Bumalik
ngayon si B. He questioned the service of summons. Equity, daw. Kawawa
naman ako. I was never given a chance to defend myself. He claimed to have
been a victim of fraud, accident, mistake, etc. Hindi ko alam na may kaso ako.
Bakit? Hindi ka ba sinabihan ng katulong mo na may kaso ka? Ganito kasi, eh.
During the past months, I’ve been moving from country to country. Wala akong
definite address. So, yung katulong ko has no way of contacting me. Ikaw pala?
Did you contact her para masabihan ka niya? No. You mean, during all those
times, you never bothered to check on your house? What kind of person are you?

You are very irresponsible. You leave your house for 6 months and never
bothered to call to say hello? Kung nasunog ang bahay mo, hindi mo alam?
Anong klaseng tao ka? So since the root cause is your irresponsibility plus the
fact that there was a valid service of summons, you are bound by the decision.

There is still a third factor in the case of Montalban which, I do not know
if you noticed because service by publication is also allowed. In the case of
Montalban, this was a collection case. It was an action for sum of money or
damages. So, in personam. tapos, under Sections 14 & 15, the rules apply only to
actions in rem. So, that is another difference, no. That a defendant who is
residing here but is temporarily out of the country may be summoned even when
he is abroad even if the action is in personam. that is why the defendant in Sec.
16 is treated differently from those found in Secs. 14 & 15.

Now, we go back to the provisions that we skipped earlier.

Sec. 8. Service upon entity without juridical personality. - When persons

associated in an entity without juridical personality are sued under the name by
which they are generally or commonly known, service may be effected upon all the
 defendants by serving upon any one of them, or upon the person in charge of the
office or place of business maintained in such name. But service shall not bind
individually any person whose connection with the entity has, upon due notice,
been severed before the action was brought. (9a)

This is related to a provision which we already studied. Rule 3, Sec. 15:

Sec. 15. Entity without juridical personality as defendant. - When two or more
persons not organized as an entity with juridical personality enter into a
transaction, they may be sued under the name by which they are generally known
or commonly known.

In the answer of such defendants, the names and addresses of the

persons composing said entity must all be revealed. (15a)

Rule 3 answers the question: When 2 or more persons are associated and they transact
with the public through an entity without a juridical personality, and the people who composed
that entity are unknown, can you sue them through the name of the entity? Yes, because we do
not know the real defendants although they have to reveal themselves later. And in such a case,
summons is served or may be effected upon all the defendants by serving upon any one of them
xxx. At least, kung isa lang ang kilala mo, dala na lahat. Or upon the person in charge of the
office or place of business maintained in such name. Whoever is in charge, whether he is one of
them or an employee, puwede.

Sec. 9. Service upon prisoners. - When the defendant is a prisoner confined in a

jail or institution, service shall be effected upon him by the officer having the
management of such jail or institution who is deemed deputized as a special
sheriff for said purpose. (12a)

In other words, ang ginademanda mo nasa loob ng presohan. Under the law, para ma-
effect ang service, iwanan ng sheriff sa warden at siya na mag-serve sa kanya. So, ang warden is
the person in charge or having the management who is deputized as a special sheriff. These are
rare situations

Sec. 10. Service upon minors and incompetents. - When the defendant is a minor,
insane or otherwise an incompetent, service shall be made upon him personally and
on his legal guardian if he has one, or if none, upon his guardian ad litem whose
appointment shall be applied for by the plaintiff. In the case of the minor, service
may also be made on his father or mother. (10a, 11a)

There is no problem about minors. Pero pag-insane or incompetent, you serve the
summons on him and also on his guardian. So, dalawa. Kung minor naman, on his father or
mother. Pero nagtataka ako why the law does not say service should be made on the guardian or
on the mother or father. Bakit on the insane and the guardian. Bakit bigyan mo pa ang insane?
Punitin lang yan. Pati minor, bigyan mo pa! Anong malay niya doon? But anyway, ang
importante, yung copy ng guardian or parent.

Now, we come to a more important provision. How do you serve summons upon a
domestic private juridical entity? Because a defendant could be a natural person. Wala tayong
problema sa natural. Service could be effected by personal, substituted or by publication.
Suppose, a defendant is a partnership or a corporation. Sec. 11, which used to be Sec. 13 of the
old rules, has also undergone radical amendments. There is a very big change in the manner of
service of summons upon private corporations under the new law. We will discuss this later.

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.
(13a)

So, the defendant is a corporation, partnership or association organized under the laws of
the Philippines with a juridical personality. So, we are talking here of a domestic private
corporation. All these big firms here are actually private domestic corporations. Now common
sense will tell you that you cannot serve summons to a corporation because it has no physical
existence. It has legal existence but it has no body. Therefore, you have to serve the summons
through people who run the company. and who are these people whom service should be made?
They are enumerated in Sec. 11.

So, the president. Minsan tinatawag pa na chief executive officer or CEO. Managing
partner. You are talking of a partnership. General manager. Take note that there is an
emphasis on the word general under the new rules. Because a corporation can have many types
of managers. Sa isang business firm, for example, merong branch manager like Davao City
Branch Manager, or Cebu Branch Manager. The law refers to the general manager, yung over-
all. He is the over-all manager of the entire corporation throughout the Philippines. And then
corporate secretary. The secretary of the corporation. The prior law says secretary. But
actually, the interpretation is corporate. Hindi yung typist secretary. Hindi yung filing clerk.
They are mere employees. A corporate secretary is also an officer of the corporation. He is a
member of the board. He holds the minutes and records of the corporation. And he is also a
stockholder. So, the new law has made it clearer. Treasurer. Custodian of the funds. The prior
law uses the word cashier. Pero it could refer to an employee also who is just giving out the
money ordered by the company. So, treasurer is more appropriate. Or, in-house counsel. This is
something new. A corporation employs an in-house counsel. Not the lawyer of the company
who is a practicing lawyer. While this is not found in the old law, that is taken from decided
cases. The SC said in those cases that if you serve summons on the internal (in-house) counsel
of a corporation, That is a valid service of summons. Because he is in a better position on what to
do. If you send it to the president or general manager, chances are ibigay man din yan sa in-
house counsel dahil he knows what to do with it. That was the ruling in several cases and among
them are:

PHIL. OIL MKTG. CORP. vs. MARINE DEVT CORP.

117 SCRA 89
FAR CORP. vs. FRANCISCO
146 SCRA 197

Where the SC said that service of summons on internal counsel for

defendant corporation who is in charge of legal matters affecting the corporation
inclusive of cases filed for and against it, is a valid service of summons.

I’m going to give you now a very radical change based on the amendment under Sec. 11
to which I do not agree because of this radical change. I am not so sure now of what is the
implication of the new amendment. If you look at the 64 Rules, particularly Sec. 13, Rule 14,
that is the counterpart, eh. Let us take a look at the provision:

Sec. 13. Service upon private domestic corporation or partnership. - If the defendant is
a corporation organized under the laws of the Philippines or a partnership duly
registered, service may be made on the president, manager, secretary, cashier,
agent, or any of its directors.

So, if you notice, there are persons mentioned which are now deleted in the new rule.
The words agent, or any of its directors. The word agent is so broad the SC considered service
of summons on some other people other than those mentioned as valid because of the word
agent. The SC, based on that, has ruled that service of summons on a branch manager is valid.
Because a general manager is in Manila. ang mga na-assign sa probinsiya ay mga branch
managers. But they are the most powerful in that area. So, service on a branch manager was
held as valid because he is an agent.

GESULGON vs. NLRC

219 SCRA 561 (1993)

The service of summons on the assistant general manager of the

corporation was considered as valid because it falls under the word agent.

R. TRANSPORT CORP.
241 SCRA 77 (1995)

The service of summons on the company’s operations manager was

considered as valid because it falls under the word agent.

FAR CORP. vs. FRANCISCO

146 SCRA 197

The summons was served on the chief of finance and administrative

section of the corporation and the court said it was valid because it falls under the
word agent.

So, you will notice that in all these decided cases, if you will serve the summons on an
officer of the corporation even if the officer is not among those mentioned but is a responsible
officer, the SC said puwede because it falls under the word agent. According to the SC, the
rationale of all rules for service of process on a corporation is that service should be made on a
representative so integrated with the corporation’s suit as to make it ---- that he will realize his
responsibilities and know what he should do when any legal paper is served on him. Like for
example, we will serve it on the branch manager of Davao City. We presume that this guy is
responsible and that he knows the risks. He will of course bring it to the attention of the head
office.

How about ordinary employees? Based on decided cases, the word agent comprehends
officers. Halimbawa, yung clerk. Puwede. The general rule is no as stated by the SC in the case
of:
DELTA MOTORS vs. MANGUSING
70 SCRA 598
 ATM TRUCKING vs. BUENCAMINO
124 SCRA 434

The laborers were not considered as agents because they are not officers.
But there are also cases I have to admit where service of summons on a mere
employee was considered as valid on the ground that it falls under the word agent
especially if it is presumed that you have a lot of common sense.

SUMMIT TRADING vs. ABENDANO

135 SCRA 397

The summons was served on the personal confidential secretary of the

president. You cannot see a president of a corporation without passing the
confidential secretary. so, doon naibigay. The court said that the service of
summons on the personal confidential secretary was valid because it falls under
the word agent on the assumption that she knows what to do.

And as a matter of fact, the SC has even relaxed it in the other cases as in the case of
Delta Motors, Mangusing, etc. The SC said service on ordinary employees is not valid because
they are not agents or officers. But in some cases, even service on an ordinary employee like a
clerk or typist or a filing clerk was valid. The clerk of course gave the summons to his superior
and the SC said the service was valid because it actually reached the proper officer. Kahit mali
ang binigyan mo, kung nakarating naman sa kinauukulan, there is now a valid service. Na-cure
ba. A corporation should not rely on technicalities. So, kung ako ang corporation tapos it was
served not on the officer, ah I will not answer. Hindi ako bound. That is very technical. Along
these cases are:

J&J CORP. vs. CA

158 SCRA 466

GOLDEN COUNTRY vs. SUNBAR

214 SCRA 295

Service of summons was effected through an ordinary clerk. Technically,

he is not even considered an agent. The SC said that service of summons on the
clerical secretary is valid. Although the service of summons was made on a
person not authorized to receive the same on behalf of the corporation, there was
substantial compliance with the rule since summons and complaint were in fact
received by the corporation through its clerk. The need for speedy justice must
prevail over a technicality.

I repeat, in all these cases service on the finance officer, operations manager, asst.
manager, branch manager, confidential secretary, even clerk were held as valid under the old
rules because they all fall under the word agent. But, I noticed under the new rule, that word was
removed. And if you look at sec. 11, the people to whom summons should be made is now
limited to the president, managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer and
in-house counsel. The word agent is removed. What is the implication of that? That is a very
nice question. Does it mean to say that the purpose of the rule is to abrogate all those decided
cases? Because if the intention was to retain it, it should have been reproduced. So, it is possible
it is now limited.

Yan ang mahirap ngayon. I have to admit. Because if you are from Davao and you will
sue a corporation, the branch manager will not qualify anymore. Eh, yung general manager
usually nasa Manila ang mga yan. I don’t think they are holding office in Davao. They are all
based in the head office. So, if the intention of the law is to limit the service to these people,
mahirap if you are from the province. Because the summons is to be transmitted to Manila and
serve there on the right officer. But it is also possible that notwithstanding the removal of the
word agent, there is no intention to abrogate all those jurisprudence on the theory that let us not
be technical. So, this is a gray area. So, remember this.

Kaya nga itong Sec. 11 is very controversial as far as I am concerned. Suppose I serve it
on other responsible persons other than those mentioned, is there a valid service of summons?
Both sides are defensible. If you maintain no, it can be defended. If you say yes, it can also be
defended. So, there are arguments to both sides. That is why I believe that there should be a
case to arise on that issue para malaman natin ano ang sagot. Is the old jurisprudence still good
or no more?

Sec. 12. Service upon foreign private juridical personality. - When the defendant
is a foreign private juridical entity which has transacted business in the
Philippines, service may be made on its resident agent designated in accordance
with law for that purpose, or, if there be no such agent, on the government
official designated by law to that effect, or on any of its officers or agents within
the Philippines. (14a)

The defendant here is also a private juridical entity. But this time it is foreign entity
during business in the Philippines. We already discussed this in Rule 11, mga foreign airlines,
foreign banks, etc. If you sue them, the service may be made on its resident agent designated by
law for that purpose. If there be no such agent, which is very surprising, on the government
official designated by law to that effect. So, DTI Secretary, Insurance commissioner. That is
why this is related to Rule 11, Sec. 2. Let us go back to that provision:

Sec. 2. Answer of a defendant foreign private juridical entity. - Where the

defendant is a foreign private juridical entity and service of summons is made on
the government official designated by law to receive the same, the answer shall
be filed within thirty (30) days after receipt of summons by such entity. (2a)

If the service of summons is made on the Philippine government official, under Rule 14,
who will now transmit it to the head office of the corporation abroad, according to Rule 11, the
period to answer is 30 days from receipt of the summons abroad. But if the foreign corporation
has a designated resident agent in the Philippines and summons is served on him, the period to
answer is only 15 days just like any other defendant.

NORTHWEST KOREAN AIRLINES vs. CA

241 SCRA 192 (1995)

If the corporation has a designated resident agent, then summons must be

served to him exclusively in order to make the service valid. Meaning, he is the
 exclusive person to whom summons should be served. If the foreign corporation
has a designated resident agent to receive summons, the designation is exclusive
and service of summons is without force and gives the court no jurisdiction unless
made upon him. It is only when there is no designated resident agent that you can
serve summons to other people mentioned in Sec. 12.

What condition for a foreign private corporation to be made a defendant under Sec. 12
and validly served with summons? According to sec. 12, it must be a foreign private juridical
entity which has transacted business in the Philippines. Normally, these corporations are what
we call resident foreign corporations. They are doing business here. Like airlines, di ba?
Foreign banks, too. These are resident foreign corporations doing business in the Philippines.

Suppose a foreign corporation is not doing business in the Philippines. There must be
thousands of other foreign corporations not doing business in the Philippines. The best gauge is
walang Philippine office. Walang branch dito. Can you sue a foreign corporation which is not
doing business in the Philippines? No. Just like the question can you sue a defendant who is not
residing here and is not physically around. No because the court can never acquire jurisdiction
over that person or foreign corporation.

Problem: A businessman in Davao wanted to buy certain machineries in Europe. He

learned that there is only one company in the world supplying these machines. That company is
not even operating in the Philippines. So, the Filipino businessman went all the way up to
Europe. Contacted the company and placed his order. So the machine was installed by the
foreign company here in the Philippines. Later on the machine faltered. The Filipino
businessman would like to sue the foreign company which sold the machine for breach of
warranty. He sued the foreign corporation in Philippine court. can the foreign corporation be
sued in a Philippine court?

Is it doing business in the Philippines or not? Sabi ng plaintiff, yes. Eto nga nakabili
ako, eh. The SC said the plaintiff is wrong. Doing business does not refer to something isolated,
casual or incidental. It refers to something continuous. The SC said: doing business is
construed to mean such continuity of conduct and intention to establish a continuous business.
An isolated transaction which is occasional, incidental or casual and which do not (?) intent to
conduct a continuous business do not constitute doing business in the Philippines.

Technically, that foreign corporation cannot be sued in Philippine court. Your remedy is
to go back to Europe and sue it there. Definitely, Philippines court cannot acquire jurisdiction
over the foreign corporation because it is not doing business in the Philippines. This becomes
clearer when you study corporation law.

Let us try to analyze this doctrine in relation to the case of Lingner & Fischer which we
have already discussed. I even asked that in your first exam. This has to do with the CA’s
power to receive evidence. In the case of Lingner & Fischer, a Filipino company entered into a
transaction with a foreign company in Germany which is Lingner & Fischer. But Lingner is not
doing business in the Philippines. Both parties entered into a contract. In the contract, it says
that all legal settlements within the compass of the agreement shall fall under the jurisdiction of
Philippine courts. Meaning, it says there that any case arising out of this contract, it shall be
resolved by Philippine courts. In effect, the foreign corporation agreed to be sued in a
Philippine court when actually it cannot be sued. Later on a case was filed against Lingner. The
trouble is how do you serve summons on a foreign corporation not doing business in the
Philippines but agreed to be sued?

You cannot apply Sec. 12 because the foreign corporation is transacting or doing business
in the Philippines. Here, it is not although it agreed to be sued in Philippine court. If that is so,
is the agreement to be sued in Philippine court a valid agreement? The SC said yes by analogy
with Rule 4 about stipulation as to venue. So, by analogy, a foreign corporation can be sued in
Philippine court because of its agreement. By analogy with Rule 4 that venue can be stipulated.

So, how do you serve summons when there is no provision governing that? The SC said:
By analogy, we apply Sec. 15, suing an individual defendant who is not residing in the
Philippines and is not physically found. So, the manner of serving summons extraterritorialy on
a non-resident defendant, by analogy, would also be applied to service of summons on a private
foreign corporation not doing business in the Philippines but which agreed to be sued in
Philippine court. So, ang ginamit is Sec. 15 by analogy.

Sec. 13. Service upon public corporations. - When the defendant is the Republic
of the Philippines, service may be effected on the Solicitor General; in case of a
province, city or municipality, or like public corporations, service may be effected
on its executive head, or on such other officer or officers as the law or the court
may direct. (15)

The Republic of the Philippines is a public corporation. So, if you sue the Republic and
make it as a defendant, (of course in cases only where it can be sued because normally it cannot
be sued), summons may be effected on the Solicitor General being the representative of the
Republic. Kung provinces, cities or municipalities, like the City of Davao, service may be
effected sa executive heads like the provincial governor, municipal mayor or the city mayor. Or
on such other officer or officers as the law or the court may direct. Puwedeng sabihin ng court
that the summons be served on the city legal officer. so, there is still a valid service of summons.

Sec. 18. Proof of service. - The proof of service of a summons shall be made in
writing by the server and shall set forth the manner, place, and date of service;
shall specify any papers which have been served with the process and the name of
the person who received the same; and shall be sworn to when made by a person
other than a sheriff or his deputy. (20)

This is what we call a sheriff’s return, di ba? He will state the manner and place of date.
Manner - Substituted or personal? Place and date. To whom served? To defendant personally
or to such other person of sufficient age and discretion? MPD - manner, place and date. Then
you specify that you serve also the complaint. Name of person who received the same. Is it the
defendant personally or his wife or whoever. Must the return be sworn to? No need except
when made by a person other than a sheriff or his deputy. Remember puwedeng mag-serve yung
person especially authorized.

Sec. 19. Proof of service by publication. - If the service has been made by
publication, service may be proved by the affidavit of the printer, his foreman or
principal clerk, or of the editor, business or advertising manager, to which affidavit
a copy of the publication shall be attached, and by an affidavit showing the deposit
of a copy of the summons and order for publication in the post office, postage
 prepaid, directed to the defendant by registered mail to his last known address.
(21)

This is only a continuation of Sec. 15 that one of the modes of extraterritorial service is
by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in which case a copy of the service of
summons shall also be sent by registered mail to the last known address of the defendant. The
registered mail there is together with the publication. But please remember as a general rule,
there is no such thing as service of summons by registered mail. That is only allowed in Rule 13.
Service here is an additional requirement for the publication. There is one instance where the
court sanctioned the service by registered mail in the case of Carriaga vs. Malaya. It falls under
in any other manner. But technically, I repeat, technically, under Rule 14, there is no such thing
as service of summons by registered mail. That is only recognized in Rule 13. Of course may
affidavit ng editor or publisher. Together with the copy, anong issue.

Sec. 20. Voluntary appearance. - The defendant’s voluntary

appearance in the action shall be equivalent to service of summons. The
inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant shall not be deemed a voluntary appearance.
(23a)

How does a court acquire jurisdiction over the person of a defendant in a civil action? By
service of summons. Is there any other way? Yes, sec. 20 says The defendant’s voluntary
appearance in the action shall be equivalent to service of summons. Voluntary appearance in the
action. For example, the defendant, without being served with summons learned that a case was
filed against him. Pag-verify niya, totoo. So, he asked a lawyer sagutin mo na. Hindi hintayin
ang summons. So, even without being served with summons and he files an answer, with that,
the court has acquired jurisdiction over his person.

Or, you are served with summons improperly. The summons was served to your son who
is only 4 years old but your child gave it to you. The defect is already cured because what is
important is that the summons reached you. (tape ends)

End of Rule 14.