Scribd
Upload
149 views3 pages

Invalid Service of Summons in RTC Case

The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court did not acquire proper jurisdiction over the respondent. [1] The process server was unable to personally serve the summons to the respondent on multiple attempts, as her housemaid refused receipt and the respondent's neighbors confirmed she was home. [2] Substituted service by leaving the summons with the housemaid was invalid under the rules requiring personal service first or leaving the summons with a person of suitable age and discretion residing at the respondent's home. [3] As the trial court did not have valid jurisdiction over the respondent, its subsequent judgment was void.

Uploaded by

Eap Bustillo
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
149 views3 pages

Invalid Service of Summons in RTC Case

The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court did not acquire proper jurisdiction over the respondent. [1] The process server was unable to personally serve the summons to the respondent on multiple attempts, as her housemaid refused receipt and the respondent's neighbors confirmed she was home. [2] Substituted service by leaving the summons with the housemaid was invalid under the rules requiring personal service first or leaving the summons with a person of suitable age and discretion residing at the respondent's home. [3] As the trial court did not have valid jurisdiction over the respondent, its subsequent judgment was void.

Uploaded by

Eap Bustillo
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
  • Facts
  • Ruling
  • Issue

CONSTANTINO A.

PASCUAL, SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS,


REPRESENTED BY ZENAIDA PASCUAL vs. LOURDES S.
PASCUAL
G.R. NO. 171916, DECEMBER 4, 2009
PONENTE: PERALTA,J.:

FACTS:

That petitioner filed a Complaint for Specific Performance


with Prayer for issuance of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction with
Damages before RTC, Malolos, Bulacan against respondent Dr.
Lourdes Pascual. The Court issued summons for respondent to
file her Answer, however, the process server of said court in his
return of service stated that although he exerted effort to effect the
service of the said summons and even went to the place twice but
still failed to serve the summons because the person in charge
refused to receive said summons.

An alias summons was issued by the RTC, that again the


process server went to the place of respondent together with
barangay officials but was not permitted to go inside her house and
was given information by her maid that the defendant was not there
although defendant's car was parked inside her house and per
inquiries made on her neighbors revealed that the defendant was
inside her house at the time of service of said summons. The
process server went again to the house of respondent Dr. Lourdes
Pascual although she was out during the time of service of the said
summons and only her housemaid was present. The undersigned
left a copy of the same to the latter who is at the age of reason but
refused to sign the same. For failure of the respondent to file a
responsive pleading, petitioner filed a Motion to Declare Defendant
in Default, to which the petitioner filed an Opposition/Comment to
Plaintiff's Motion to Declare Defendant in Default claiming that she
was not able to receive any summons and copy of the complaint.
The RTC declared respondent in default and allowed petitioner to
file his evidence ex-parte.

Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration but it was


denied by the RTC. Respondent then filed a Motion to Set Aside
Order of Default dated with the argument of non-service of
summons upon her. This was denied by the CA; and on the same
day, a Certificate of Finality and Entry of Judgment was issued.
Eventually, respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the
Order which was denied by the CA. Finally, a Writ of Execution
was issued to enforce the Decision of the RTC by the CA. Hence
this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there was a proper and valid substituted service of


summons, the resolution of which, will determine whether
jurisdiction was indeed acquired by the trial court over the person
of the petitioner.

RULING:

In a case where the action is in personam and the defendant


is in the Philippines, the service of summons may be done by
personal or substituted service as laid out in Sections 6 and 7 of
Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Court. The provisions state:

Section 6. Service in person on defendant. - Whenever


practicable, the summons shall be served by handing a copy
thereof to the defendant in person, or, if he refuses to receive and
sign for it, by tendering it to him.
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.
A plain and simple reading of the above provisions indicates that
personal service of summons should and always be the first option,
and it is only when the said summons cannot be served within a
reasonable time can the process server resort to substituted
service.

Applying the above disquisitions, the jurisdiction over the


person of the respondent was never vested with the RTC, because
the manner of substituted service by the process server was
apparently invalid and ineffective. As such, there was a violation of
due process. Jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired either
upon a valid service of summons or the defendant’s voluntary
appearance in court. When the defendant does not voluntarily
submit to the court’s jurisdiction or when there is no valid service of
summons, “any judgment of the court which has no jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant is null and void.”
The said doctrine, however, is applicable only when the
judgment or decision is valid. In the present case, as earlier
pronounced, and as ruled by the CA, the judgment in question is
void, the RTC not having acquired jurisdiction over the person of
the respondent. It is a well-entrenched principle that a void
judgment can never become final.

Common questions

Powered by AI

The case exemplifies the critical role of adhering to procedural rules for court summons, as improper service directly affects court jurisdiction and due process. Invalid service led to the failure of acquiring legal authority over Lourdes S. Pascual, rendering any subsequent RTC actions void. This underscores that procedural adherence ensures valid jurisdiction, which is foundational for lawful and enforceable court decisions .

When a defendant claims an invalid substituted service, they can file a motion to set aside a default order by arguing non-service of summons, as Lourdes S. Pascual did. This challenges jurisdiction and any consequent judgments. If denied, the recourse includes filing appeals or petitions for review, arguing the lack of due process and jurisdiction. If successful, the court’s judgment can be voided, emphasizing adherence to lawful service .

Lourdes S. Pascual argued that she did not receive the summons, as it was improperly served. The court responded by acknowledging the invalidity of the substituted service attempt, as the process server did not comply with the procedural requirements for service of summons under the Revised Rules of Court. This led to the recognition that the RTC never acquired jurisdiction over Pascual, rendering its judgments void .

The process server's methods were unsuccessful because he relied on leaving summons with the respondent's maid, who refused to sign it, thus failing the requirement of delivering to a competent and suitable person at the residence. The server's actions did not constitute a diligent effort, particularly since the maid was not authorized to receive legal documents. Consequently, these attempts did not fulfill the criteria for valid service of summons under the Revised Rules of Court .

The Revised Rules of Court stipulate that substituted service of summons is permissible only when personal service is impracticable or cannot be effected within a reasonable time. It requires that copies of the summons be left either at the defendant's residence with a person of suitable age and discretion, or at the defendant’s office with a competent person in charge. In the case of Constantino A. Pascual vs. Lourdes S. Pascual, substituted service was deemed invalid because the process server failed to meet these conditions, as the respondent's housemaid, who refused to sign the summons, was not deemed a competent person to receive it .

A void judgment has no legal force or effect, irrespective of its apparent finality. Such a judgment cannot become final or be executed, as it is rendered by a court lacking jurisdiction over involved parties. It results in any subsequent proceedings or enforcement actions derived from the judgment being similarly invalid and unenforceable, as seen in the case with Lourdes S. Pascual, where the CA ruled the RTC's judgment void .

Personal service of summons is prioritized under the Revised Rules of Court and involves directly handing a copy of the summons to the defendant. Substituted service is only permissible when personal service is impracticable. It involves leaving the summons with a suitable person at the defendant’s residence or place of business. The preferential treatment of personal service safeguards due process by ensuring the defendant is directly informed of the legal action .

In an in-personam action, service of summons should be executed through personal service, directly handing the summons to the defendant. If personal service is impractical, substituted service may follow, which means leaving the summons with a competent person of suitable age at the defendant's residence or office. Each step requires comprehensive documentation to show due diligence in fulfilling the conditions. Failing to adhere to these steps means the court does not acquire jurisdiction over the defendant .

A void judgment is one rendered by a court lacking jurisdiction over the parties involved. In this case, the court's decision concerning Lourdes S. Pascual was deemed void because the RTC did not establish jurisdiction over her due to the improper service of summons. This principle underscores that without jurisdiction, any resulting decisions or judgments are not enforceable and lack legal effect .

Due process requires that a defendant be properly notified of the proceedings against them, which is typically achieved through valid service of summons. In the discussed case, due process was violated because the substituted service of summons on Lourdes S. Pascual was invalid. As a result, jurisdiction over the respondent was not acquired by the RTC, making any judgment rendered by the court null and void due to lack of jurisdiction .

CONSTANTINO A. PASCUAL, SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS, REPRESENTED BY ZENAIDA PASCUAL vs. LOURDES S. PASCUAL G.R. NO. 171916, DECE
was issued to enforce the Decision of the RTC by the CA. Hence this petition. ISSUE: Whether or not there was a proper and v
The said doctrine, however, is applicable only when the judgment or decision is valid. In the present case,

You might also like