SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

VITUG, J., dissenting opinion:

With all due respect, I cannot share the view that there was, in this case, a valid service of summons. The Sheriffs return would indicate that a substituted service under Section 8, Rule 14, of the Revised Rules of Court, was made on 06 February 1994; however, it was, as theponencia itself so expressed it, "bereft of any particulars on the impossibility of personal service on petitioners within a reasonable time." The rule enunciated in Keister vs. Navarro (77 SCRA 209) could thus apply; to wit:

"Service of summons upon the defendant is the means by which the court may acquire jurisdiction over his person. In the absence of a valid waiver, trial and judgment without such service are null and void. This process is solely for the benefit of the defendant. Its purpose is not only to give the court jurisdiction of the person of the defendant, but also to afford the latter an opportunity to be heard on the claim made against him.

"The summons must be served to the defendant in person. It is only when the defendant cannot be served personally within a reasonable time that a substituted service may be made. Impossibility of prompt service should be shown by stating the efforts made to find the defendant personally and the fact that such efforts failed. This statement should be made in the proof of service. This is necessary because substituted service is in derogation of the usual method of service. It has been held that this method of service is in derogation of the common law; it is a method extraordinary in character, and hence maybe used only as prescribed and in the circumstances authorized by statute. Thus, under the controlling decisions, the statutory requirements of substituted service must be followed strictly, faithfully and fully, and any substituted service other than that authorized by the statute is considered ineffective.

"Indeed, the constitutional requirement of due process requires that the service be such as may be reasonably expected to give . the desired notice to the party of the claim against him."

The fact that the defendants later submitted a motion for additional time within which to file their answer to the complaint should not be deemed a waiver of the defective service of summons except only from the date of such submission or voluntary appearance since it was only then when jurisdiction over their persons could be deemed to have been lawfully acquired by the court.