KUPALOURD RULE 14
REM 1 BRONDIAL
RULE 14 Summons
To begin with, let me remind you that the word
summons ay may s at singular ito.
Summons is
Summonses are
And watch out for any problem regarding
summons because it can appear there
summons was served on defendants X, Y and
Z. kung separate iyon, meaning they have
separate causes of action for X, Y and Z, mali
na kaagad. By the terminology itself, it should
be summonses were served on X, Y, Z.
1. What is summons?
Summons is a process, the receipt of
which, the court acquires jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant. We studied
regarding jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant; there are only two (2) ways by
which the court can acquire jurisdiction over
the person of the defendant. And that is
through:
1. valid service of summons;
2. voluntary appearance
And these are all found in Rule 14.
Voluntary appearance is in sec. 20 thereof.
1.1 What is an Alias Summons or writ of
summons?
Section 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.
1
An alias writ of summons are
Page
summons other than the original summons.
Alias summons is one which is the second or
third or fourth summons prepared.
1.2 How many alias writ of summons can
you ask for?
As many as it is necessary.
1.3 You know why I emphasize this?
Because you might read there Alias Writ
of Execution. Walang ganon ngayon, wala
nang alias writ of execution pero may
Alias Summons. Kasi ngayon, writ of
execution has a lifetime of 5 years. So
hindi ka na dapat humingi ng alias writ of
execution because of the 5-year period,
your remedy is separate action which is
action to revive under sec. 6 of rule 39.
But dito, we are talking of alias writ of
summons.
2. Who issues the summons?
It is the clerk of court who issues
summons.
Section 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.
Section 2. Contents. The
summons shall be directed to the defendant,
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;
(b) 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.
After the complaint was filed by the
plaintiff, summons was served upon the
defendant. The defendant, in reading the
summons, contested it and threw it away
saying it is not signed by the judge. Is that
error on the part of the court? No, the judge
never signs nor issues the summons. It is the
clerk of court that signs, issues and serves
the summons, not the judge.
3. To whom the summons is
addressed?
It is addressed to the sheriff
or his deputy sheriff.
4. Who may serve summons?
Section 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.
Summons can only be served either
by the sheriff or deputy sheriff or any other
person EXPRESSLY authorized by the court.
Only three people are qualified to serve the
summons:
1. The sheriff;
2. Deputy sheriff;
3. or any other person authorized by
the court.
Example of a person
authorized by the Rules is
Section 9. When the
defendant is a prisoner, to
whom should it be
served? It should be served
to the prisoner by the
warden. The warden is
authorized by the Rule.
4.1 Can the plaintiff serve the summons
to the defendant?
E di I-qualify niyo. If he has been
KUPALOURD RULE 14
REM 1 BRONDIAL
authorized by the court, then he may serve
the summons. He has to ask for leave to do
that and only for justifiable reasons.
Example: If after several tries, the
sheriff cannot find the whereabouts
of the defendant. Only the plaintiff
knows because the defendant keeps
transferring from one residence to
another. The plaintiff should move to
leave for service of summons. In
actual practice, you do not go to
such lengths; you simply accompany
the sheriff.
4.2 Can a police man serve the
summons?
If the policeman is authorized by the
court, then he can serve the summons
because this authorization by the court must
be EXPRESSED. It does NOT necessarily call
for written but its better. But AT LEAST it
must be expressed.
O halimbawa, the sheriff or any clerk
or any staff in the office of the staff, o ikaw
pala pulis, o ikaw, kilala mo to si X di ba?
Pakibigay mo na lang tong summons, balik
mo na lang dito na pirmado niya na. In this
case, the service of summons is invalid. The
policeman cannot serve the summons, the
NBI cannot serve the summons. (Brondial: im
thinking of the summons under rule 14 ha,
kasi mayron pang ibang sinasabing
summons may summons nga ang barangay
eh. But this is different, this is summons
under rule 14)
Section 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.
Section 5. Issuance of alias summons. If a
2
summons is returned without being served on
Page
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)
4. Modes of service of summons. What are
the modes of service of summons? (must
be distinguished from modes of service
of pleadings)
a. service in person on the defendant
(dont say personal service, to
distinguish it from service of pleadings)
Section 6. Service in person on
defendant. Whenever practicable, the
summons shall be served by handling a copy
thereof to the defendant in person, or, if he
refuses to receive and sign for it, by tendering
it to him.
To be more precise, don't say anymore
personal service kasi that has been amended
into service in person precisely, so as not to
confuse that mode with personal service of
pleadings and judgments under Rule 13. Kaya
nga always say pagdating sa summons,
SERVICE IN PERSON of the defendant. This is
the first mode.
There are 2 ways: delivering it to the
defendant himself; and if he refuses to accept
it, by leaving it with him as laid down in
Valmonte vs CA.
What is SERVICE IN PERSON OF
THE DEFENDANT?
It is delivering the Summons
personally to the defendant or if he does not
want to receive it, then LEAVE it there. Hindi
yan substituted service. Pag iniwan mo don,
that is still SERVICE IN PERSON. Pag ayaw
tanggapin, ang ginagawa ng mga sheriff
ngayon binabalik sa court, sasabihin, ayaw po
tanggapin, ayaw po pumirma. But under the
Rules, Pwede niyang gawin yon (na iwan niya).
Dapat bigay mo, eto po may summons sa
inyo, ano ba ito? Ah hinde ayaw ko nyan.
The sheriff can make the return and the return
prevails pagdating sa validity of service of
summons, the return of the sheriff. This is still
service in person of the defendant. Ngayon,
kung halimbawa, you cannot avail of that
service in person of the defendant, you do it
through substituted service.
b. substituted service
Substituted service of summons is
upon the person residing in the residence of
the defendant who must be of age and
discretion. If he cannot be found there, at
the office of the defendant, to a person in
charge therein of age and discretion.
Section 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.
What is SUBSTITUTED SERVICE of
summons?
Substituted service of summons is
delivering it to the residence of the defendant
to a person of age and discretion residing
therein or at the office of the defendant to a
person of age and discretion in charge thereof.
KUPALOURD RULE 14
REM 1 BRONDIAL
makikita niyo, inuna residence, pangalawa
office. Pag bumalik ka sa rule 13, yung
personal service of pleadings which include
delivery to the office or at the residence. Inuna
yung office (of the counsel). Napansin niyo?
Why? Because it is presumed that this
pleadings are served and there is already a
counsel. But in the case of summons, inuna
yung residence kasi yung presumption
summons pa LANG ito, wala pang lawyer.
DIBA? Kaya residence muna. So that is
through substituted service of summons.
[case/illustration] Now, lets go to
SUBSTITUTED SERVICE. Madaming case ang
substituted service. But the mose prominent of
all these cases, which is a landmark case is the
case of MANOTOC vs. CA. This case is the
enforcement of a foreign judgment against
Imee Marcos Manotoc. So, sineserve kay imee
yung summons, enforcement of foreign
judgment under sec. 48 of rule 39, kasi
mayroong pinatay sa abroad na na involve si
Imee then may mga damages, so ito,
enforcement of a foreign judgment. It was
served in one of the condominium unit of imee
marcos in mandaluyong city served upon a
person with the name Macky De la Cruz. And
then, Imee marcos questioned the jurisdiction
of the court over her person saying that
substituted service was not properly availed of.
When it reached the SC, the SC said, imee is
correct, there was no proper substituted
service of summons. Read that case, and
importance nito is as important as Hannah
serrana vs. Sandiganbayan kasi landmark case
ito. Sinundan ito ng marami pero basahin niyo
don, kasi ang sinabi don ng supreme court,
very stringent ang requirement ng substituted
service. The first requirement in the return
must show that the sheriff availed of personal
or service in person and this service in person
did not materialize and what is service in
person according to that manotoc case?
there must be at least 3 efforts/tries,
two of which must be on the same day.
3
Ibig sabihin pag nag service in person ka,
Page
pupuntahan mo yung defendant sabihin mo,
mr. defendant, ito ba si Mr. dela cruz? Wala po
siya rito. Bakit asan ba siya? Nasa opisina.
Anong oras ba ang dating niya? Mga 3 or 4 ng
hapon. Umalis ka, BUMALIK KA ULIT NG
HAPON. Ngayon pag balik sinabi sayo wala pa
rin siya. Some other time you go back, so 3
efforts, 3 tries. That is very clear in the
manotoc doctrine that service in person on the
defendant must be tried for 3 times and these
trials are all unsuccessful. Two of which must
be on the same day. If you have complied with
that, you can now avail f susbstituted service.
First at the residence and you have to serve it
to a person RESIDING therein who is of AGE
and DISCRETION. In the manotoc case, the
person of age is at least 18 years of age (bago
ito, dati kasi it does not necessarily mean na
legal age as long as you are a person of
discretion, ngayon the conjunction was
emphasized by the SC, the person who
receives must not only be of legal he must also
be of discretion; legal age 18 y/o and he must
be residing therein). So kung bisita lang siya,
tapos tumanggap siya, that is an invalid
substituted of service.
c.
Now if you cannot find the defendant in
his residence, you also try his office. But to
whom will you serve it at his office? It should
be served to a person of AGE and DISCRETION
who is in charge thereof. there is one case
where the office of the lawyer was in a building
and the sheriff kumatok, walang tao, pagbaba
niya sabi niya sa guardiya, eto summons o,
pwede ba bigay mo na lang don binigay niya
sa guwardiya, the security guard of the
building, not the security guard of the office.
SC held, this is an invalid service of
summons because it was served not to a
person in charged of the office. The
security guard is in charge of the building
and not the particular office.
So, do I have to tell you this? kasi may
isang kaso nan a conflicting pero obiter lang.
sa Paranaque, yung isang subd. Pumapasok
yung sheriff palaging wala palaging wala, so
iniwan niya yung summons sa security guard
and the SC said valid. Pero wag niyong gamitin
yon ha! Haha kasi hindi yon. Baka nabasa niyo
kasi yon. I just mentioned it. Obiter lang ito,
itong kay manotoc, doctrinal. So ito ang
gamitin niyo sa substituted service.
So you are the sheriff, kumatok ka sa
opisina, walang sumasagot, nilakasan mo,
nakarinig ka, pasok! pag pasok mo, may
isang mama, nakataas yung paa sa mesa,
sinabi. ano yon? sagot: summons po, akin
na! pumirma. Unfortunately, he happens to be
the janitor. He is not in charge of the office.
kung secretary, mas lalo kung mabait na
secretarya of age and discretion, she can
receive substituted service of summons served
in the office because she is in charge of the
office because the secretary is not only in
charge of the office, she is also in charge of
the boss. Laughing.
service through publication
What/how is SERVICE BY
PUBLICATION (done)?
Now, the other mode is through
publication. So you ask leave of court to be
safe about it and then it will be published but
the publication mode of service of summons
must be coupled with a delivery of a copy of
the summons together with the complaint at
the last known address. So mere publication
will not suffice, it must be coupled with service
of summons at the last known address of the
defendant.
 KUPALOURD RULE 14
REM 1 BRONDIAL
d. extraterritorial service of summons (sec. 15) which states na pag extra territorial, reasonable time, which shall not be less

4
you can course it to the DFA (this than sixty (60) days after notice, within

Page
refers only to summons of foreign
What/how is EXTRA- private juridical entities). but the
TERRITORIAL service (done)? circular will be applied to other modes
authorized byt the court. Can you do
When you go to extra territorial it also by registered mail? YES if it
service, yung una in PERSON (sec. 15). The falls under any other mode
first condition to apply extra-territorial service authorized by the court then it can
is that the defendant is OUTSIDE THE be through registered mail. But as a
COUNTRY. Halimbawa, in a case for annulment rule, wala yung registered mail.
of marriage. this is very common, yung
magasawa papakasal, tapos umalis yung lalake
So let me go back, diniscuss ko very
nagpunta sa Saudi tapos nakakuha doon ng
briefly yung different modes and please
nurse, tapos hiwalay na dito, annulment of
consider sec. 14 and 16 because 14 and 16, in
marriage, very common ito. Kaya pag kayo
those sections, you are cross-referred to
kinasal, stay put. Balewala. Dito ka lang. I
section 15 di ba? When the whereabouts of
have several cases, many cases. ang
the defendant is unknown or 16, when the
pinagtataka ko pa ang mga kaso ngayon ng
defendant is temporarily outside the country.
annulment of marriage ang mga petitioner
Those are the same modes. So 14 and 16
lalake! About 15-20 years ago, I have several
whereabouts unknown, publication.
cases of annulment of marriage mga 95%
babae ang client ko. Ngayon I have a pending
seven as of now, out of this seven cases, five
Section 15. Extraterritorial service.
are the husbands. Bakit ngayon baliktad na?
When the defendant does not reside and is
sabi kasi ng babae, if you can do that, I can do
not found in the Philippines, and the action
better (joking). Kaya gentlemen, be careful. affects the personal status of the plaintiff or
Itong annulment of marriage( in this situation) relates to, or the subject of which is,
extra territorial, di ba? The defendant is in
property within the Philippines, in which the
Saudi Arabia, what do you do? You have three
defendant has or claims a lien or interest,
choices:
actual or contingent, or in which the relief
demanded consists, wholly or in part, in
(1) personal service/service in excluding the defendant from any interest
person. You pay, you buy a round trip therein, or the property of the defendant
ticket to the sheriff. Punta ka doon, has been attached within the Philippines,
the sheriff would be very happy, service may, by leave of court, be effected
minsan mag rerequest pa yung sheriff out of the Philippines by personal service as
na isama na pati yung misis niya. under section 6; or by publication in a
HAHAHA. Na deliver doon, valid yon. newspaper of general circulation in such
But that is quite expensive. Take note places and for such time as the court may
that wala don iyong substituted. No order, in which case a copy of the summons
substituted sa extraterritorial. So and order of the court shall be sent by
kung wala don, what you do is by (2) registered mail to the last known address of
publication or (3) any other mode the defendant, or in any other manner the
authorized by the court. Ngayon,
court may deem sufficient. Any order
may bagong Admin Matter 11-3-6- SC
granting such leave shall specify a
which the defendant must answer. (17a)
Section 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.
i. Personal/service in person
[illustrative case] Let me go
now to personal. Maraming
cases ito ha, but most of these
cases are doctrinal, paulit ulit
lang naman pero dito sa
personal service in relation
to extra territorial service,
that old old case of Valmonte
still applies. What is this case all
about? Attorney valmonte
resides in Washington USA
together with his wife and his
sister in law filed a case against
them and they filed it in manila.
Sabi ng sheriff aboriad daw pala
ito so we cannot do this, Sabi ng
plaintiff, hintayin na lang natin
kasi attorney Valmonte comes
regularly to manila because he
has a law office here. So when
he comes, I serve natin yung
summons. So ang nangyare,
hinintay nila na duamting dito sa
manila (lawyer ng several
nighclubs in ermita at that
time). So sinerve ng sheriff ang
summons kay atty. Valmonte.
He signed and received it. Sabi
ng sheriff, we have another
KUPALOURD RULE 14
REM 1 BRONDIAL
summons for your wife. Sabi ni
atty. Valmonte, I cannot receive
that why? I am not authorize
by my wife to receive it. What
did the sheriff do? Personal
service. He left it. Atty.
Valmonte said, the court did not
acquire jurisdiction over the
person of his wife. So this went
up to the supreme court. The
issue is the personal service in
relation to extra territorial
service. At that time, sec. 16 pa
ung extra territorial, the
supreme court said the service
of summon upon atty. Valmonte
is valid but the service of
summons upon the wife is
invalid. Why? Kasi extra
territorial service. The rule is
very clear regarding the modes
that there are any other modes
authorized by the court the
plaintiff should have gone to
court and asked for any mode,
that she could not avail of
publication but she did not
because this extra territorial
service, THERE IS NO
SUBSTITUTED SERVICE sa extra
territorial. Pero actually personal
iyon e, pero di nga tinaggap ni
atty. Valmonte. So this case still
applies.
ii. by publication
iii. any other mode authrorized
EXPRESSLY by the court
Masyadong
malawak ito, but
remember this falls
under exrtra serive.
Pwede kayong
bigyan ng
dishonest
question. Halibawa There are specific kinds of defendants.
5
ang tanong or
Page
halimbawa a. on corporations: public or private,
presented in a domestic or foreign
problem, the
service of summons Section 11. Service upon domestic
was by registered private juridical entity. When the
defendant is a corporation, partnership or
mail. The question
association organized under the laws of the
is, is there a service
Philippines with a juridical personality,
of summons by
service may be made on the president,
registered mail? managing partner, general manager,
There is NONE! So corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-house
that service of counsel.
summons by
registered mail is an Section 12. Service upon foreign private
invalid service of juridical entities. When the defendant is
summons. But a foreign private juridical entity which has
suppose that transacted business in the Philippines, service
summons by may be made on its resident agent
registered mail was designated in accordance with law for that
authorized by the purpose, or, if there be no such agent, on the
court, was that a government official designated by law to that
valid service of effect, or on any of its officers or agents
within the Philippines.
summons?
Distinguish mo! If
its extra- territorial Section 13. Service upon public
service of summons, corporations. When the defendant is the
Republic of the Philippines, service may be
YES! If NOT extra-
effected on the Solicitor General; in case of a
territorial service of
province, city or municipality, or like public
summons, NO!
corporations, service may be effected on its
because under the executive head, or on such other officer or
rules, the service of officers as the law or the court may direct.
summons which is
duly authorized by If the defendant is a corporation, there are 2
the court is only kinds of corporation:
within extra- - public corporation- usually the
territorial serive Republic of the Phils. You summons
(sec. 15). You don't the Office of the Solicitor General. But
if it is the instrumentality of the
find that in any
government, lets say the city of
other section of Rule
Naga, you serve it upon the chief
14. Ok?
executive of Naga City. Of the City of
Manila? You serve it upon either to
5. On whom served Joseph Estrada or any person
designated by the court to receive it
KUPALOURD RULE 14
REM 1 BRONDIAL
properly. So any member of the
board, for example, if it is designated
by the court to receive it for and in
behalf of the city, that can be done.
- Private corporation- they are divided
into 2:
o Domestic private- let me
remind you, hanggang
ngayon hindi pa rin binabago
ang doctrine dito. The
doctrine laid down in EB
Villarosa still holds. Kaya
restrictive ang application.
The enumeration there of the
6 persons are the only
persons who can validly
receive summons for the
private corpo. Whether you
agree with it or not, I
personally do not agree with
that kind of ruling, kasi
napakahirap. Kasi at least
noon, as early as Filoil Corpo
v CA, tinanggap ang
substantial compliance, the
doctrine. Wala nay an. It was
insinuated in Millenium
Industrial and Commercial
Corp v Tan. It was implied
but it was removed once
more in the case of Boyon v
CA and also in, Pascual v
Pascual. So later cases ito.
Basta ang tatandaan niyo,
wala ng substantial
compliance pagdating sa
summons upon this private
domestic corporation. Ang
latest non, I think, is not
even Pascual v Pascual.
Quilala Dole Phils v Quilala,
Judge Quilala of Makati.
You are limited only to the
following 6: the pres, the
man. partner, the gen. man,
the corpo sec., the treasurer
and in-house counsel. When
6
we were trying to, in the
Page
early days of J. Nachura in
the SC, we are trying to
revise the rules informally. I
was already trying to talk
about thisthat its very very
hard for the court to acquire
jurisdiction over defendants
who are private domestic
corpo because of this
doctrine: restrictive. Wala ng
iba. Walang substituted
service, diba? That is the
doctrine laid down in DOLE
Phils incidentally. Walang
substituted service if the
defendant is a private
domestic corpo. So the
doctrine of substantial
compliance is already
removed.
Isa-isahin natin. Dito sa Filoil
nung meron pa. This is
historical background lang
ano. Ang doctrine ng Filoil,
the doctrine which brought
out the doctrine of
substantial compliance,
ganito nangyari non, yung
abogado nag appear for
purposes of Motion to
Dismiss on the ground that
there was no valid service of
summons. So sabi ng court,
o sige., lets serve the
summons again. Then ng
ma-serve, bumalik pa rin
yung lawyer, sabi niya, it was
not duly served. It was
served upon that particular
person and we dont even
that person. O, sige, sheriff,
ayusin mo dito mo i-serve sa
mga ganito. The 3rd time
around. Bumalik na naman
yung lawyer. Your Honor, the
court did not acquire
jurisdiction because it was
served on this. E nainis na
yung Judge. Pabalik-balik ka
rito walang service of
summons, how are you
related to the defendant
corporation? I am the legal
counsel serve it upon him. So
sinerve ng sheriff doon sa
legal counsel. But Im not
authorized! NO, serve it upon
him. Pabalik-balik na yan
dito, walang jurisdiction. Edi
ikaw, ibigay mo doon.
When that went up to the
SC, because he is the legal
counsel, the presumption is
that it was referred to the
corporation. Yun ang doctrine
of substantial compliance. If
you can establish that it was
served on someone other
than the one authorized to
receive it, you can establish
that that someone who
received the summons,
religated or brought the
news, informed or told the
defendant of his receipt of
copy of the motion, then
there is substantial
compliance. WALA NA YAN
NGAYON. Tinanggal na yan.
Dapat restrictive pagdating
sa private domestic
corporation. Doon lang talaga
sa anim. Other than the 6,
wala na. Come on, if you try
to halimbawa, ang
defendant is San Miguel
Corporation, so you go to
san ba opisina nito? Sa
Ortigas diba? The main
office, punt aka ron, you are
a sheriff of the RTC. Sino ho
KUPALOURD RULE 14
REM 1 BRONDIAL
ang kelangan niyo? Nasa
ground floor ka palang,
guwardiya. Halimbawa, nasa
3rd floor yung president,
gusto ko po makausap si Mr.
Ang. Sinong Mr. Ang? Yung
president po ng SMC. Don ka
palang sa ground floor
sabihin sayo ng guwardiya,
umalis alis ka nga diyan ha.
Baka sipain kita. Makikipag-
usap ka sa president ng
corporation? May
appointment ka ba? One
month dapat may
appointment ka. So
makalusot ka man sa
guwardiya kasi kababayan
mo, usap usap muna kayo.
Nakalusot ka. Sa susunod na
sekretarya, mahirapan ka pa.
e yung sekretaryang
kausapin mo, nakapants pa
yan. Diba? Ang susunod na
sekretarya diyan, naka
miniskirt na. diba? Mas
lalong mahirapan ka. Pataas
ka ng pataas until pagdating
don sa kwarto ni Mr. Ang, my
gosh, sasalubungin ka muna
ng sekretarya, yun talaga
super na yon! Hahahah!
So what Im trying to point
out here ladies and
gentlemen, is the difficulty of
this doctrine. Very restrictive.
Pagkatapos tinanggal pa
yung substituted service.
Tinanggal pa yung
substantial compliance.
When I discuss this with
some justices, sabi nila.
Madali lang naman e.
merong solusyon. Yung huli.
Ano yon? Legal counsel. Kasi
kung sinasabi mong you are
troubled with big big
corporation, they have
7
several legal counsels. And
Page
their legal counsels are even
law offices. Pagdating mo
run, SMC, aaa ACRA.
Pagdating mo sa ACRA,
tatanggapin yan ng legal
counsel kahit yung clerk don
tanggapin diyan, o yon.
Valid? VALID SERVICE OF
SUMMMONS because it was
served on the legal counsel.
Sabi ko, oo nga no.
So itong president, general
manager, managing partner,
ito siguro yung maliliit na
corporation. Doon ka
mahihirapan. E tayo naman
e, kaunti lang na nakatapos
ka lang, ano bang trabaho
mo? General Manager.
Madami yan. Saan na general
manager? General Manager
sa Pegasus. Hahaha!
Bakit wala yung Vice
President don? Kasi
napakarami non. Vice
President ka for what? Vice
President for external affairs.
Ikaw, vice president ka ng
ano? Vice President for
Environmental Affairs. O yon.
Kung ano-ano, akya wala na
diyan yung Vice President.
SO President, Managing
Partner, General Manager,
Not just a secretary but a
corporate secretary. Then,
treasurer and in-house
counsel. Tinanggal yung
cashier then pagkatapos,
tinanggal yung any other
person authorized. Yun ang
sa old rule. Ngayon, limited
only to the 6. Very
restrictive.
o Foreign Private Corporation-
Tatlo to. (was discussed
already in Rule 13) Sec. 12!
1. Resident agent
2. Resident agent
designated by law /
Government official
designated by law
3. or any other officer
or agent residing or
found in the
Philippines
Pagdating sa number 1 and 2, 15 days pa rin
yan. To Answer, 15 days. Pero if it is served
upon the government official or officer
designated by law, yun ang 30 days.
b. On natural persons: prisoners;
minors/incompetents; unknown; entities
without juridical personality
Section 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 such service shall not bind individually
any person whose connection with the entity
has, upon due notice, been severed before
the action was brought.
With Sec. 8 you start with entities without
juridical capacity. You will note that, that is
also a party authorized to sue and be sued
which we studied under Rule 3, so here on
summons. How do you summons an entity
without juridical personality?
So this is an association of individuals but they
present themselves as a group but they are
KUPALOURD RULE 14
REM 1 BRONDIAL
not duly recognized /duly registered.
Halmibawa, ABCDE. They put up and call
themselves Golden Buddha Corp. so can you
file a case against Golden Buddha Corp? YES.
Because it is an entity authorized by law. Can
it file? YES. Entity without juridical personality.
But when you summons this Golden Buddha
Corp. The summons upon one of its
members will be a summons to all of
them. You dont have to give 5 summonses to
ABCDE. You have only to give summons to A,
doing business under the style, the name and
the style of Golden Buddha Corpo, o hindi
corporation, Golden Buddha Enterprises.
Section 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.
Prisoners. Kawawa naman tong prisoners na
to. Nakakulong na nga meron na naming kaso.
So how do you serve summons upon the
prisoner?
The prisoner is served summons upon him,
NOT upon the warden. Not upon the one in
charge of the jail. If you serve the summons
on the prison ON THE WARDEN, that is invalid
service of summons. You serve summons on
the prisoner thru the warden, thru the person
in charge of the jail.
Yan ang concept ng Sec 9 and the warden is a
deputized sheriff. In effect, he does not need
leave of court to effect service of summons
upon the prisoner unlike other persons they
must be expressly authorized by the court but
in case of prisoners being served summons,
the warden is a deputized sheriff.
Section 10. Service upon minors and
incompetents. When the defendant is a
minor, insane or otherwise an incompetent,
8
service shall be made upon him personally
Page
and on his legal guardian if he has one, or if
none his guardian ad litem whose
appointment shall be applied for by the
plaintiff. In the case of a minor, service may
also be made on his father or mother.
Iba yung minor. Iba yung incompetent. If you
are insane, kawawa rin ito. Sira ulo na nga,
nagkasala pa. Or you are an imbecile, you are
an incompetent. Ano ba ang term dito ng
incompetent? Kasi marami sa Rules of Court
re: incompetent. Who are qualified to be an
executor? Or administrator? Pag incompetent,
hindi pa pwede. Disqualified.
Don naman sa guardianship, diba? Under
guardianship, who are incompetent? Prodigals.
The parable of the prodigal daughter. Wala na
ngayon prodigal son. Mababait na ngayon ang
mga lalaki. So PRODIGALS
Pero dito, who is this incompetent? There is no
enumeration. Kasi in guardianship, there is no
defitinition who are incompetent. [But] there is
an enumeration. These are the following are
incompetents. Dito ba? May enumeration? NO.
so determinable at a proper time. That
incompetent. SO the defendant for example is
an insane person. Papaano mo ma-serve ang
summons sa kanya? Hintayon mo magkaroon
siya ng lucid interval kasi maganda yung
insanity at least may lucid interval. See? So
even if you are insane, you can still take the
bar during lucid intervals.
Do you have wait for the person to be in lucid
interval? NO. because nakalagay diyan, AND
(the conjunction AND) so summonses not only
summons, summonses upon the guardian AND
the incompetent.
Pero tignan niyo ang last sentence diyan
regarding the minor. The minor, you have an
option. You can just serve it on the minor
AND/OR simply upon the guardian or the
guardian ad litem. Diba? Under the law on
guardianship tatlong klase yon, you have the
legal guardian or the natural guardian who are
the parents. You have the judicial guardian and
you have the guardian ad litem. So in this
particular case, he can be a guardian ad litem.
Hes only appointed to receive summons for
the incompetent. Only for that purpose. After
that, wala na, yun lang ang trabaho niya, to
receive.
Pero yung legal guardian, they are the parents.
Kaya nakalagay diyan if the defendant is a
minor, you tie that up with minors and
incompetents also under Rule 3. The minors
and incompetents. Can they sue and be sued?
YES, but they must always be assisted by
parents, guardians, or guardians ad litem.
Actually, the parents are the natural or legal
guardian.
I was asking one student regarding dun sag
anon kung i-s-serve don. Sino ba ang legal
guardian? Yung parents. Anong parents ba?
Biological parents ba? O other parents. Kasi ito
alam mo maraming pwedeng kung medyo
advance ang pag-iisip ng examiner he can
think of he can formulate questions na pero
maganda siguro not based on the rules na.
practical lang. wag niyo alisin ang praktikalidad
niyo ha sa pagsagot ng question. Kasi kung
minsan you are so concentrated on what the
law is what the rule is na ang tinatanong
naman is a matter of reasoning. Logic lang e.
If the defendant is a minor, it is definitely by
representative party. To whom do you serve
the summons? Serve the summons upon the
minor OR (not AND) the parent. But if it is an
incompetent, you serve it on the incompetent
AND the parent or guardian or guardian ad
litem. If it is a minor, service of summons
upon the parent is sufficient. But if it an
incompetent, it must be served on both the
incompetent and the
parent/guardian/guardian ad litem.
Dont apply the word incompetent here to
 KUPALOURD RULE 14
REM 1 BRONDIAL
those who are incompetent under
settlement of estate (ex. drunkards). Thats
a different matter.
Section 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.
Those whose whereabouts are unknown.
Meaning, to say, hindi mo alam halimbawa
ang address. O hindi moa lam whether he is
the owner or what relation has he? Hindi ba
meron tayo don sa parties na alternative
defendants? Suppose you invoke that
provision on alternative defendants, either
or. Do you have to serve summons upon
those defendants? Both of them? Or one
summons upon one will be a summons upon
the other? NO. You have to serve 2
summonses. Kapag alternative defendant,
you have to serve 2 summonses differently.
6. Proofs of service
Section 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.
Section 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
9
sworn to when made by a person other than
Page
a sheriff or his deputy.
Section 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.
Ang proof dito is very specific. The validity of
service of summons depends principally and
substantially on the return. Sa Rule of
Evidence ha, a return is a public document that
does not even have to be authenticated. So
admitted without even being authenticated
under the Rules of Evidence.
But at any rate, the return, for purposes of
actual practice, when you get to become
lawyers, tatandaan niyo, na kailangan na
kailangan basahin niyong mabuti ang sheriffs
return. That is the only way that you can
establish that jurisdiction has been acquired by
the court over the person of the defendant.
Halimbawa, nag substituted service siya.
Daming cases niyan ha. Diyan sa Pascual v
Pascual din. Dapat yung sheriffs return must
specifically state and comply with the
requirements of substituted service. In the
sheriffs return, the sheriff must state that he
has undertaken personal service where he
tried to serve it for 3 times, two of which on
the same day, and the last one on another day
and he was not successful and that he served
it therefore at the residence of the defendant
to a person of legal age and of discretion,
residing in the residence of the defendant.
Dapat yan nakalagay sa Shereiffs return. Pag
wala yan sa Sheriffs return, palaging pwede
mong kwestyunin ang jurisdiction of the court
over the person of the defendant.
B. Voluntary Appearance
Section 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.
Finally, the other way by which the court
acquire jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant which is voluntary appearance.
Historically, thru jurisprudence, you will note
that it started with the DeMidgeley (?) v
Fernandos. Tagal na non. Then it was followed
by La Naval Drug Case. Ito yung mga
doctrines don yung mga and then the latest
of that is of course, Millenium Industrial and
Commercial Corporation v Tan. Yon regarding
dito sa Voluntary Appearance.
What is the general concept? Or what is the
general meaning to establish that the
defendant voluntarily submitted himself to
the jurisdiction of the court thru voluntary
appearance? Basic is when the defendant
asked for affirmative relief from the court
then he has submitted himself to the
jurisdiction of the court. That is very very
fundamental. Yun lang palagi ang titignan
niyo. Did he ask? Kaya nga in the cases that
I have cited, when the defendant goes to
court and files a Motion to Dismiss, dito sa
DeMidgeley, limited yung ground ng
dismissal. I file a Motion to Dismiss on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction, therefore, there
is no voluntary appearance. However, if my
ground includes other grounds other than lack
of jurisdiction, then I have voluntarily
submitted to the jurisdiction of the court.
KUPALOURD RULE 14
REM 1 BRONDIAL
Kaya noon ang tagal na niyan ha, baka yun
ang kina kuwan mo, hindi yan ang doctrine
ngayon. Sinasabi ko lang, yung background
yun ang dati. Sa ngayon, hindi na yan kasi
pagdating don sa La Naval Drug Corporation,
it says that when you file a Motion to Dismiss
on the gound of lack of jurisdiction, and other
grounds other than lack of jurisdiction, wala
ng voluntary appearance as long as there is a
ground for lack of jurisdiction. So na-amend
yung DeMidgeley. Ngayon, kaya nangyare
noon, dapat isasama mo palagi yung lack of
jurisdiction. Kahit meron ka pang ibang
grounds, Motion to Dismiss, like improper
venue.
Ngayon, the present doctrine is any time that
you file a Motion to Dismiss on whatever
ground, then you cannot be considered to
have voluntatily surrendered yourself to the
jurisdiction of the court. Kahit anong ground
sa ngayon. Kahit wala yung lack of
jurisdiction. Kasi ang lack of jurisdiction jan
ay lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
and lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant. Pwede yan and titignan niyo, dito
yan si Millenium Industrial and Corporation v
Tan, kasi anong sinabi ng SC, in order for
voluntary appearance to apply as a mode or
as a way by which the court acquired
10
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant,
the submission must be categorical and
unequivocal. And in that case, kung nag f file
Page
ka na nga ng Motion to Dismiss, gusto mo ba
na ituloy ang kaso against you? Of course
not!
Ano ang latest diyan, yung sinabi ko na when
we were discussing jurisdiction. The latest
there is Dipakakibo Garcia v SB. Kasi when
they were charged Sinerve yung summons
doon sa kulungan ni Major General Garcia.
Tinanggap ba ni Major General? Tinanggap
niya pero merong marginal note. I am
receiving this for and in behalf of my wife and
other children and it does not mean that I will
be able to give it to them. Ngayon, pagdating
ng kinwestyon ito. Whether or not the court
acquired jurisdiction over the person of
Clarita Dipakakibo and children, the SC held
NO! the court did not acquire jurisdiction over
the person of Clarita. So it is consistent with
all the doctrines regarding valid service of
summons.
Ang importante kasi rito sa Garcia, is not so
much the summons but rather the dismissal
of the case saying that there was an
absorption of the 1st forfeiture case with the
plunder case. Kasi yung forfeiture case, this
has something to do with jurisdiction ha. The
forfeiture cases dalawa yon. Una muna,
forfeiture case RA 1379. Pagka file non,
nagfile uli ng pangalawa. Then yung pangtalo
plunder. Malamang ganito mangyare kay
Napoles. Baka magbigay sa bar based on the
facts of Garcia pero ang nilagay don si Janet.
Pero walang family name. alam na kung sino
yan...
So ngayon ano ang voluntary appearance,
when you ask for affirmative relief like when
you file a Motion to set aside the order of
default, under Rule 9, because you are asking
an affirmative relief. Or you file a motion for
extension of time to file answer then that is
voluntary appearance. Tatandaan niyo ang
general concept. Kapag humihingi ka ng
general relief but you must have categorically
and unequivocally submitted yourself to the
jurisdiction of the court. Otherwise, under the
Millenium doctrine, then the court did not
acquire jurisdiction or could not have acquired
jurisdiction of your person and hence, it is not
thru voluntary appearance.