1) The case involved a dispute over installment purchases of heavy equipment by the petitioner from the respondent company. When the petitioner's postdated checks were dishonored, the respondent filed a case.
2) The sheriff attempted substituted service on the petitioner by leaving the summons with the petitioner's security guard. However, the court found this was not a valid form of substituted service as required by the Rules of Court, which mandate service be made to someone with a relationship of confidence to ensure the defendant receives the summons.
3) As valid service is necessary for a court to acquire jurisdiction over a defendant, and substituted service was not properly effected in this case, the court found it did not have jurisdiction over
1) The case involved a dispute over installment purchases of heavy equipment by the petitioner from the respondent company. When the petitioner's postdated checks were dishonored, the respondent filed a case.
2) The sheriff attempted substituted service on the petitioner by leaving the summons with the petitioner's security guard. However, the court found this was not a valid form of substituted service as required by the Rules of Court, which mandate service be made to someone with a relationship of confidence to ensure the defendant receives the summons.
3) As valid service is necessary for a court to acquire jurisdiction over a defendant, and substituted service was not properly effected in this case, the court found it did not have jurisdiction over
1) The case involved a dispute over installment purchases of heavy equipment by the petitioner from the respondent company. When the petitioner's postdated checks were dishonored, the respondent filed a case.
2) The sheriff attempted substituted service on the petitioner by leaving the summons with the petitioner's security guard. However, the court found this was not a valid form of substituted service as required by the Rules of Court, which mandate service be made to someone with a relationship of confidence to ensure the defendant receives the summons.
3) As valid service is necessary for a court to acquire jurisdiction over a defendant, and substituted service was not properly effected in this case, the court found it did not have jurisdiction over
1) The case involved a dispute over installment purchases of heavy equipment by the petitioner from the respondent company. When the petitioner's postdated checks were dishonored, the respondent filed a case.
2) The sheriff attempted substituted service on the petitioner by leaving the summons with the petitioner's security guard. However, the court found this was not a valid form of substituted service as required by the Rules of Court, which mandate service be made to someone with a relationship of confidence to ensure the defendant receives the summons.
3) As valid service is necessary for a court to acquire jurisdiction over a defendant, and substituted service was not properly effected in this case, the court found it did not have jurisdiction over
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 3
Civ Pro Rule 14, Sec 7
Chu vs. Mach Asia
G.R. No. 184333 April 1, 2013 Facts: Respondent Mach Asia Trading Corporation is a corporation engaged in importing dump trucks and heavy equipments. On December 8, 1998, petitioner Sixto N. Chu purchased on installment one (1) Hitachi Excavator worth P900,000.00 from the respondent. Petitioner initially paid P180,000.00 with the balance of P720,000.00 to be paid in 12 monthly installments through Prime Bank postdated checks. On March 29, 1999, petitioner again purchased two (2) heavy equipments from the respondent on installment basis in the sum of P1,000,000.00, namely: one (1) motorgrader and one (1) payloader. Petitioner made a down payment of P200,000.00 with the balance of P800,000.00 payable in 12 monthly installments through Land Bank postdated checks. However, upon presentment of the checks for encashment, they were dishonored by the bank either by reason of "closed account," "drawn against insufficient funds," or "payment stopped." On November 29, 1999, the RTC issued an Order6 allowing the issuance of a writ of replevin on the subject heavy equipments. On December 9, 1999, Sheriff Doroteo P. Cortes proceeded at petitioner's given address for the purpose of serving the summons, together with the complaint, writ of replevin and bond. However, the Sheriff failed to serve the summons personally upon the petitioner, since the latter was not there. The Sheriff then resorted to substituted service by having the summons and the complaint received by a certain Rolando Bonayon, a security guard of the petitioner.7chanroblesvirtualawlibrary Issue: Whether or not there was a valid substituted service Rulings: No. As a rule, summons should be personally served on the defendant. It is only when summons cannot be served personally within a reasonable period of time that substituted service may be resorted to.15Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court provides:
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. It is to be noted that in case of substituted service, there should be a report indicating that the person who received the summons in the defendant's behalf was one with whom the defendant had a relation of confidence, ensuring that the latter would actually receive the summons. Also, impossibility of prompt personal service must be shown by stating that efforts have been made to find the defendant personally and that such efforts have failed. This is necessary because substituted service is in derogation of the usual method of service. It is a method extraordinary in character, hence, may be used only as prescribed and in the circumstances authorized by statute. The statutory requirements of substituted service must be followed strictly, faithfully and fully, and any substituted service other than that authorized by statute is considered ineffective. In the case at bar, it was not shown that the security guard who received the summons in behalf of the petitioner was authorized and possessed a relation of confidence that petitioner would definitely receive the summons. This is not the kind of service contemplated by law. Thus, service on the security guard could not be considered as substantial compliance with the requirements of substituted service. Evidently, plaintiff-appellee cannot be penalized, through no fault of its own, for an irregular or defective return on service of summons. In the interest of fairness, the process server's neglect or inadvertence in the service of summons should not, thus, unduly prejudice plaintiffappellee's right to speedy justice. The service of summons is a vital and indispensable ingredient of due process. As a rule, if defendants have not been validly summoned, the court acquires no jurisdiction over their person, and a judgment rendered against them is null and void.20 Since the RTC never acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner, the judgment rendered by the court could not be considered binding upon him for being null and void.
United States v. The Southland Corporation and S. Richmond Dole and Eugene Mastropieri, The Southland Corporation, Eugene Mastropieri, 760 F.2d 1366, 2d Cir. (1985)