Scribd
Upload
114 views2 pages

Macasaet Vs Co

The RTC sheriff twice attempted to personally serve the summons on the defendants at their business address but was unable to do so as the defendants were unavailable both times. The sheriff then resorted to substituted service. The defendants argued the court did not have jurisdiction over them due to the invalid substituted service. However, the court ruled that substituted service is allowed if personal service proves impossible within a reasonable time, which it determined was the case based on the sheriff's attempts. Therefore, the court had properly acquired jurisdiction over the defendants.

Uploaded by

Alyssa Brillo
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
114 views2 pages

Macasaet Vs Co

The RTC sheriff twice attempted to personally serve the summons on the defendants at their business address but was unable to do so as the defendants were unavailable both times. The sheriff then resorted to substituted service. The defendants argued the court did not have jurisdiction over them due to the invalid substituted service. However, the court ruled that substituted service is allowed if personal service proves impossible within a reasonable time, which it determined was the case based on the sheriff's attempts. Therefore, the court had properly acquired jurisdiction over the defendants.

Uploaded by

Alyssa Brillo
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/ 2

Macasaet, et. al.

vs Co

FACTS:

Respondent, a retired police officer assigned at the Western Police District in Manila, sued Abante Tonite, a daily
tabloid of general circulation; its Publisher Allen A. Macasaet; its Managing Director Nicolas V. Quijano; its Circulation
Manager Isaias Albano; its Editors Janet Bay, Jesus R. Galang and Randy Hagos; and its Columnist/Reporter Lily
Reyes (petitioners), claiming damages because of an allegedly libelous article petitioners published in the June 6,
2000 issue of Abante Tonite. The suit, docketed as Civil Case No. 00-97907, was raffled to Branch 51 of the RTC,
which in due course issued summons to be served on each defendant, including Abante Tonite, at their business
address at Monica Publishing Corporation, 301-305 3rd Floor, BF Condominium Building, Solana Street corner A.
Soriano Street, Intramuros, Manila.

RTC Sheriff Raul Medina proceeded to the stated address to effect the personal service of the summons on the
defendants. But his efforts to personally serve each defendant in the address were futile because the defendants
were then out of the office and unavailable. He returned in the afternoon of that day to make a second attempt at
serving the summons, but he was informed that petitioners were still out of the office. He decided to resort to
substituted service of the summons.

Petitioners moved for the dismissal of the complaint through counsel’s special appearance in their behalf, alleging
lack of jurisdiction over their persons because of the invalid and ineffectual substituted service of summons. They
contended that the sheriff had made no prior attempt to serve the summons personally on each of them in
accordance with Section 6 and Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioners.

RULING: To warrant the substituted service of the summons and copy of the complaint, the serving
officer must first attempt to effect the same upon the defendant in person. Only after the attempt at
personal service has become futile or impossible within a reasonable time may the officer resort to
substituted service.

As a rule, Philippine courts cannot try any case against a defendant who does not reside and is not found in the
Philippines because of the impossibility of acquiring jurisdiction over his person unless he voluntarily appears in court;
but when the case is an action in rem or quasi in rem enumerated in Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court,
Philippine courts have jurisdiction to hear and decide the case because they have jurisdiction over the res, and
jurisdiction over the person of the non-resident defendant is not essential. In the latter instance, extraterritorial
service of summons can be made upon the defendant, and such extraterritorial service of summons is not for the
purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction, but for the purpose of complying with the requirements of fair play or
due process, so that the defendant will be informed of the pendency of the action against him and the possibility that
property in the Philippines belonging to him or in which he has an interest may be subjected to a judgment in favor
of the plaintiff, and he can thereby take steps to protect his interest if he is so minded. On the other hand, when the
defendant in an action in personam does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, our courts cannot try the case
against him because of the impossibility of acquiring jurisdiction over his person unless he voluntarily appears in
court.

Under the Rules of Court, the service of the summons should firstly be effected on the defendant himself whenever
practicable. Such personal service consists either in handing a copy of the summons to the defendant in person, or, if
the defendant refuses to receive and sign for it, in tendering it to him. 24 The rule on personal service is to be rigidly
enforced in order to ensure the realization of the two fundamental objectives earlier mentioned. If, for justifiable
reasons, the defendant cannot be served in person within a reasonable time, the service of the summons may then
be effected either (a) by leaving a copy of the summons at his residence with some person of suitable age and
discretion then residing therein, or (b) by leaving the copy at his office or regular place of business with some
competent person in charge thereof. 25 The latter mode of service is known as substituted service because the service
of the summons on the defendant is made through his substitute.
Only when the defendant cannot be served personally within a reasonable time may substituted service be resorted
to. Hence, the impossibility of prompt personal service should be shown by stating the efforts made to find the
defendant himself and the fact that such efforts failed, which statement should be found in the proof of service or
sheriff’s return.28 Nonetheless, the requisite showing of the impossibility of prompt personal service as basis for
resorting to substituted service may be waived by the defendant either expressly or impliedly. 29

There is no question that Sheriff Medina twice attempted to serve the summons upon each of petitioners in person at
their office address, the first in the morning of September 18, 2000 and the second in the afternoon of the same
date. Each attempt failed because Macasaet and Quijano were "always out and not available" and the other
petitioners were "always roving outside and gathering news." After Medina learned from those present in the office
address on his second attempt that there was no likelihood of any of petitioners going to the office during the
business hours of that or any other day, he concluded that further attempts to serve them in person within a
reasonable time would be futile. The circumstances fully warranted his conclusion. He was not expected or required
as the serving officer to effect personal service by all means and at all times, considering that he was expressly
authorized to resort to substituted service should he be unable to effect the personal service within a reasonable
time.

You might also like