Scribd
Upload
67 views3 pages

Manotoc Case Rem Law

The requirements for valid substituted service of summons were not met in this case. Specifically: 1) The return of summons lacked details on efforts to personally serve the petitioner and did not establish that personal service was impossible. 2) The summons was left with a caretaker but the return did not provide information about his age, discretion, or relationship to the petitioner. 3) Strict compliance with service of summons rules is required to protect a defendant's due process rights. 4) For corporations, summons must be served on specific officers listed in the rules like the president or corporate secretary. Service on an ordinary employee is not valid.

Uploaded by

Se'f Benitez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
67 views3 pages

Manotoc Case Rem Law

The requirements for valid substituted service of summons were not met in this case. Specifically: 1) The return of summons lacked details on efforts to personally serve the petitioner and did not establish that personal service was impossible. 2) The summons was left with a caretaker but the return did not provide information about his age, discretion, or relationship to the petitioner. 3) Strict compliance with service of summons rules is required to protect a defendant's due process rights. 4) For corporations, summons must be served on specific officers listed in the rules like the president or corporate secretary. Service on an ordinary employee is not valid.

Uploaded by

Se'f Benitez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Personal Jurisdiction

B. Summons (Summons)

B.1. Individual (Personal and Substituted Service)

MA. IMELDA M. MANOTOC, Petitioner vs HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and


AGAPITA TRAJANO on behalf of the estate of ARCHIMEDES TRAJANO,
Respondents
G.R. No. 130974; August 16, 2006

A substituted service of summons to be valid must faithfully and strictly comply with the
prescribed requirements and circumstances authorized by the rules.

FACTS: That Agapita Trajano, the petitioner, sought the enforcement of a foreign
judgment as rendered by the United States District Court of Honolulu, Hawaii, USA against
Imee Marcos-Manotoc for the wrongful death of deceased Archimedes Trajano committed
by military intelligence officials of the Philippines allegedly under the command, direction,
authority, supervision, tolerance, sufferance and/or influence of Manotoc.

That RTC issued summons addressed to petitioner at Alexandra Homes, Meralco Avenue,
Pasig City. The summons and a copy of the complaint were served upon Macky Dela
Cruz, an alleged caretaker of the petitioner’s unit. When petitioner failed to file an answer,
she was declared in default. Petitioner, by special appearance, filed a Motion to Dismiss
on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over her person claiming that Alexandra Homes is not
her residence, dwelling or regular place of business considering that she was a resident of
Singapore; that Dela Cruz is not her representative, employee or resident of the place; and
that the procedure prescribed by the Rules on personal and substituted service of
summons was ignored.

RTC: RTC denied the Motion to Dismiss relying on the presumption of regularity in the
performance of the sheriff’s duties. It also denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.

CA: CA dismissed the petitioner’s Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition. It adopted the
finding of facts of the RTC. It also denied the petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.
Hence, petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.

ISSUE: Whether or not there was a valid service of summons.

HELD: NO.

Requirements for Substituted Service:


There is impossibility of prompt Personal Service. There must be several attempts of at
least 3 tries by the sheriff to personally serve the summons within reasonable time.
Sheriff must describe in the Return of Summons the specific details of the attempted
personal service.
If the substituted service will be effected at defendants house or residence, it should be left
with a person of suitable age and discretion residing therein. A person of suitable age and
discretion is one who has attained the age of full legal capacity (18 years old) and is
considered to have enough discernment to understand the importance of a summons.
If the substituted service will be done at defendants office or regular place of business,
then it should be served on a competent person in charge of the place.
In this case, the Return of Summons describing the facts and circumstances in inexact
terms is wanting of material data on the serious efforts to serve the Summons on petitioner
to reach the conclusion that there is impossibility of prompt personal service. Assuming
arguendo that the general description be considered adequate, there is still a serious
nonconformity from the requirement that the summons must be left with a person of
suitable age and discretion residing in defendants house or residence. In this case, the
Sheriffs Return lacks information as to residence, age, and discretion of Dela Cruz, aside
from the sheriffs general assertion that de la Cruz is the resident caretaker of petitioner as
pointed out by a certain Ms. Lyn Jacinto, alleged receptionist and telephone operator of
Alexandra Homes. Besides, De la Cruz’s refusal to sign the Receipt for the summons is a
strong indication that he did not have the necessary relation of confidence with petitioner.
To protect petitioners right to due process by being accorded proper notice of a case
against her, the substituted service of summons must be shown to clearly comply with the
rules.

For failure to strictly comply with the requirements of the rules on valid substituted service,
the proceedings held before the trial court must be annulled.

B.2. Corporation Rule (is substituted service on Corporations allowed?)

Facts:  That On February 25, 2003, a Mitsubishi L-300 van which Universal Robina Corporation
( URC) owned figured in a vehicular accident with petitioner Green Star Express, Inc.’ s (Green
Star) passenger bus, resulting in the death of the van’s driver. Thus, the bus driver, petitioner Fruto
Sayson, Jr., was charged with the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. Thereafter,
Green Star sent a demand letter to respondent NissinUniversal Robina Corporation (NURC) for the
repair of its passenger bus amounting to ₱567, 070.68. NURC denied any liability therefore and
argued that the criminal case shall determine the ultimate liabilities of the parties. Thereafter, the
criminal case was dismissed without prejudice, due to insufficiency of evidence. Sayson and Green
Star then filed a complaint for damages against NURC before the R TC of San Pedro, Laguna.
Francis Tinio, one of NURC’s employees, was the one who received the summons. On February 6,
2004, NURC filed a Motion to Dismiss claiming lack of jurisdiction due to improper service. 

Issue: Whether or not there is valid service of summons.


Held: No. It is a well-established rule that the rules on service of summons upon a domestic private
juridical entity must be strictly complied with. Otherwise, the court cannot be said to have acquired
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. 

NURC maintains that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over it as the summons was received by
its cost accountant, Francis Tinio. It argues that under Section 11, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of
Court, which provides the rule on service of summons upon a juridical entity, in cases where the
defendant is a domestic corporation like NURC, summons may be served only through its officers.
Thus: 
Section 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.
In the past, the Court upheld service of summons upon a construction project manager, a
corporation‘s assistant manager, and ordinary clerk of a corporation, private secretary of corporate
executives, retained counsel, and officials who had control over the operations of the corporation
like the assistant general manager or the corporation‘s Chief Finance and Administrative Officer.
The Court then considered said persons as “agent” within the contemplation of the old rule.
Notably, under the new Rules, service of summons upon an agent of the corporation is no longer
authorized, The rule now likewise states “general manager” instead of “manager”; “corporate
secretary” instead of merely “secretary”; and “treasure” instead of “cashier.” It has now become
restricted, limited, and exclusive only to the persons enumerated in the aforementioned provision,
following the rule in statutory construction that the express mention of one person excludes all
others, or expression unions est exclusion alterius. Service must, therefore, be made only on the
person expressly listed in the rules. If the revision committee intended to liberalize the rule on
service of summons, it could have easily done so by clear and concise language.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy