Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--x
DECISION
The Facts
On July 15, 1993, the Summons and a copy of the Complaint were
allegedly served upon (Mr.) Macky de la Cruz, an alleged caretaker of
petitioner at the condominium unit mentioned earlier.[4] When petitioner
failed to file her Answer, the trial court declared her in default through an
Order[5] dated October 13, 1993.
The Issues
The assigned errors bring to the fore the crux of the disagreement
—the validity of the substituted service of summons for the trial court to
acquire jurisdiction over petitioner.
The sheriff must describe in the Return of Summons the facts and
circumstances surrounding the attempted personal service.[25] The efforts
made to find the defendant and the reasons behind the failure must be
clearly narrated in detail in the Return. The date and time of the attempts
on personal service, the inquiries made to locate the defendant, the
name/s of the occupants of the alleged residence or house of defendant
and all other acts done, though futile, to serve the summons on defendant
must be specified in the Return to justify substituted service. The form
on Sheriff’s Return of Summons on Substituted Service prescribed in the
Handbook for Sheriffs published by the Philippine Judicial Academy
requires a narration of the efforts made to find the defendant personally
and the fact of failure.[26] Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 5
dated November 9, 1989 requires that “impossibility of prompt service
should be shown by stating the efforts made to find the defendant
personally and the failure of such efforts,” which should be made in the
proof of service.
Let us examine the full text of the Sheriff’s Return, which reads:
In the case Umandap v. Sabio, Jr.,[33] it may be true that the Court
held that a Sheriff’s Return, which states that “despite efforts exerted to
serve said process personally upon the defendant on several occasions the
same proved futile,” conforms to the requirements of valid substituted
service. However, in view of the numerous claims of irregularities in
substituted service which have spawned the filing of a great number of
unnecessary special civil actions of certiorari and appeals to higher
courts, resulting in prolonged litigation and wasteful legal expenses, the
Court rules in the case at bar that the narration of the efforts made to find
the defendant and the fact of failure written in broad and imprecise words
will not suffice. The facts and circumstances should be stated with more
particularity and detail on the number of attempts made at personal
service, dates and times of the attempts, inquiries to locate defendant,
names of occupants of the alleged residence, and the reasons for failure
should be included in the Return to satisfactorily show the efforts
undertaken. That such efforts were made to personally serve summons
on defendant, and those resulted in failure, would prove impossibility of
prompt personal service.
SO ORDERED.
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
DANTE O. TINGA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached
in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion
of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
[1]
Dated October 24, 1997, rollo, pp. 3-18.
[2]
Complaint, dated June 25, 1993, Annex “C” of Petition, rollo, pp. 32-36.
[3]
Dated July 6, 1993, Annex “D” of Petition, rollo, p. 37, records, p. 28.
[4]
Sheriff’s Return, dated July 15, 1993, Annex “E” of Petition, rollo, p. 38, records, p. 29.
[5]
Annex “G” of Petition, rollo, p. 41, records, p. 33.
[6]
Dated October 18, 1993, Annex “H” of Petition, rollo, pp. 42-44, records, pp. 35-37.
[7]
Exhibit “3”, records, pp. 95-96.
[8]
Rollo, p. 25-26.
[9]
Exhibits “A” to “EEEEE,” records, pp. 152-258.
[10]
Supra note 4.
[11]
Records, p. 275, par. 3.
[12]
RTC Pasig Branch 163 Order, records, p. 309.
[13]
Rollo, p. 58.
[14]
CA rollo, pp. 77-86. (penned by Associate Justice B.A. Adefuin-Dela Cruz, with Associate
Justices Pedro A. Ramirez and Ricardo P. Galvez concurring).
[15]
Rollo, p. 72.
[16]
Rollo, p. 31.
[17]
Rollo, pp. 7-8.
[18]
Domagas v. Jensen, G.R. No. 158407, January 17, 2005, 448 SCRA 663, 677, citing Lam v.
Rosillosa, G.R. No. L-3595, May 22, 1950, 86 Phil. 447.
[19]
Id. at 678, citing Hamilton v. Levy, G.R. No. 139283, November 15, 2000, 344 SCRA 821.
[20]
Id. at 679, citing Ang Ping v. CA, G.R. No. 126947, July 15, 1999, 369 Phil. 607, 310 SCRA 343.
[21]
Now 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Rule 14, Sec. 7.
[22]
Arevalo v. Quitalan, G.R. No. 57892, September 21, 1982, 116 SCRA 700, 707.
[23]
Far Eastern Realty Investment, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. L-36549, October 5, 1988, 166 SCRA 256,
262.
[24]
Supra note 21, Sec. 5.
[25]
Domagas v. Jensen, supra note 14, at 678.
[26]
A HANDBOOK FOR SHERIFFS (October 2003), p. 116.
[27]
REVISED RULES OF COURT, Rule 14, Sec. 8.
[28]
WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY (1993), p. 647.
[29]
Supra note 4.
[30]
Supra note 13.
[31]
See Samartino v. Raon, G.R. No. 131482, July 3, 2002, 383 SCRA 664, 669; Hamilton v. Levy,
G.R. No. 139283, November 15, 2000, 344 SCRA 821, 829; and Madrigal v. CA, G.R. No.
129955, November 26, 1999, 319 SCRA 331, 336.
[32]
62B Am Jur 2d, Process § 147, citing Romeo v. Looks, 369 Pa Super 608, 535 A2d 1101, app den
518
Pa 641, 542 A2d 1370 and app den 518 Pa 642, 542 A2d 1370.
[33]
G.R. No. 140244, August 29, 2000, 339 SCRA 243, 249.
[34]
Domagas v. Jensen, supra note 15, at 679.
[35]
62B Am Jur 2d, Process § 150, p. 857, citing Guaranty Trust & Safe Deposit Co. v. Green Cove
S. &
M.R.. Co., 139 US 137, 35 L Ed 116, 11 S Ct 512.
[36]
Id. at 857-858, citing Miller v. Corning Glass Works, 102 Ariz 326, 429 P2d 438.
[37]
Id. at 858, citing Grannis v. Ordean, 234 US 385, 53 L Ed 1363, 34 S Ct 779.
[38]
Id., citing Galpin v. Page, 85 US 350, 21 L Ed 959.
[39]
Id., citing Napoleon B. Broward Drainage Dist. v. Certain Lands, etc., 160 Fla 120, 33 So 2d
716.
[40]
Rollo, p. 28.
[41]
G.R. No. L-77760, December 11, 1987, 156 SCRA 305, 313.