Impossible task

When personal service of summons is impossible to be done within a reasonable time despite efforts to locate the party, service may be effected by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint upon a person of sufficient age and discretion residing at the party’s residence or upon a competent person in charge of the party’s office or place of business. This is known as substituted service of summons. Can a substituted service however be effected through a security guard of the subdivision where a party lives? This is the question decided in this case between Remy and Lita.

Remy borrowed US$20,054 from Lita as shown by a memorandum agreement between them. When Remy failed to pay her obligation, Lita sued her in the Regional Trial Court to recover the said amount.

Summons was served on Remy at her given address. However, it was returned unserved because Remy no longer resides at said address. Alias summons was thus issued for service at Remy’s new address in a subdivision. Again, it could not be served on Remy because the security guard at the gate of the subdivision refused to let the Sheriff go inside the subdivision to effect the service of summons. According to the Sheriff, the security guard (SG) refused to let him go inside the subdivision twice because of Remy’s instruction not to let anybody proceed to her house if she is not around. Despite the Sheriff’s explanation to the SG that even if Remy is not around, the summons can be received by any person of suitable age and discretion living in the same house, the SG who answered by the name Garcia still refused. Therefore, the Sheriff served the summons by leaving a copy thereof together with the copy of the complaint to SG Garcia so he will be the one to give the same to the defendant although SG Garcia refused to affix his signature on the original copy.

Eventually, the court declared Remy in default upon motion of Lita for her failure to reasonably file any answer despite service of summons done by the sheriff. Then the court rendered judgment ordering Remy to pay the sum of $20,054 plus the stipulated interest of 3 percent per month, P100,000 moral damages; and P50,000 plus P1,500 per appearance as attorney’s fees.

Remy however questioned the judgment by default rendered against her. She contended that the service of summons upon the Security Guard is not in compliance with the rule on substituted service (Section 7, Rule 14, Rules of Court) because the SG is not related to her or staying at her residence. Moreover, the SG was not duly authorized to receive summons for the residents of the village. Hence, the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over her as to render a valid judgment, Remy contended. Was Remy correct?

No. It is the spirit rather than the letter of the procedural rules that governs. An overly strict application is frowned upon. In his return, the Sheriff declared that he was refused entry by the SG twice. The latter informed him that Remy prohibited him from allowing anybody to proceed to her residence whenever she is out. Remy failed to controvert that she did give such instruction to the SG. Nor did she deny having received the summons through the SG. Obviously it was impossible for the sheriff to effect personal or substituted service of summons upon Remy. Considering her strict instruction to the SG, she must bear its consequences. The lower court is therefore correct in ruling that summons has been properly served upon Remy and that it has acquired jurisdiction over her (Robinson vs. Miralles, G. R. 163584, December 12, 2006).

E-mail at: [email protected] or [email protected]