TOPIC SUMMONS

CASE NO. G.R. No. 170926. September 15, 2006

CASE NAME GUIGUINTO CREDIT COOPERATIVE, INC. (GUCCI), petitioner, vs. AIDA
TORRES, NONILO TORRES and SHERYL ANN TORRES-HOLGADO
MEMBER 🌲

DOCTRINE
Substituted Service of Summons

Without specifying the details of the attendant circumstances or of the efforts exerted to serve the summons,
a general statement that such efforts were made will not suffice for purposes of complying with the rules
of substituted service of summons

Substituted service must: (a) indicate the impossibility of service of summons within a reasonable time, (b)
specify the efforts exerted to locate the petitioners, and (c) state that it was served on a person of sufficient
age and discretion residing therein

General
Summons is a writ by which the defendant is noti ed of the action brought against him. Service of such
writ is the means by which the court acquires jurisdiction over his person

Where the defendant is a natural person, service may be personal, substituted, by publication and such other
mode of service as the court may deem sufficient.

If he cannot be personally served with summons within a reasonable time, substituted service may be made
in accordance with Section 8 of the said Rule. If he is temporarily out of the country, any of the following
modes of service may be resorted to: (1) substituted service set forth in Section 8; (2) personal service
outside the country, with leave of court; (3) service by publication, also with leave of court; or (4) any other
manner the court may deem sufficient.

RECIT-READY DIGEST
The Torres respondents are members of GUCCI (Guiguinto Credit Cooperative, Inc) who failed to pay on
due dates their loans from the coop (GUCCI). GUCCI then filed aa case before RTC Bulacan for collection.
Summons were served against respondents through a certain Benita Pagtalunan (respondents' secretary)
on April 22, 2003. A Return of Summons was filed on April 24, 2003 by a Process Server named Valeriano
Badato. After presentation of evidence ex-parte, the trial court rendered judgment that respondents pay
GUCCI. GUCCI moved for issuance of writ of execution which was granted. Sheriff Felixberto Samonte
levied respondents' house and lot and was scheduled to be sold at a public auction when the CA issued a
TRO. CA annulled trial court judgment on grounds that it did not acquire jurisdiction over the persons of
the respondents since they were not validly served with summons and neither did they voluntarily appear
in court. It was also stated that no explanation why resort to substituted service of summons was made,
hence respondents were deprived of their right to due process.

Whether or not summons was validly served on the respondents? – No.

RULE: A substituted service must: (a) indicate the impossibility of service of summons within a
reasonable time, (b) specify the efforts exerted to locate the petitioners, and (c) state that it was served on
a person of sufficient age and discretion residing therein or with a competent person in charge if in an
office

APPLICATION: Granting that Pagtalunan is the personal secretary of Aida Torres, there is no
showing that the former had indeed a relationship of trust and confidence with the three
1
respondents. It appears that the process server hastily and capriciously resorted to substituted service of
summons only on his first attempt without ascertaining the whereabouts of the respondents.

Also, no earnest efforts were made to locate respondent Aida Torres who was allegedly working abroad at
the time summons was served on her person. No explanation why substituted service was resorted to
through Pagtalunan was stated in the Return. Without specifying the details of the attendant
circumstances or of the efforts exerted to serve the summons, a general statement that such efforts were
made will not suffice for purposes of complying with the rules of substituted service of summons.

The ineffective substituted service acquires no jurisdiction over the respondents, hence the
judgment by default, writ of execution, and auction sale of the levied property are all null and void

FACTS

1. Respondents are members of GUCCI, they availed of loans from the cooperative but we unable to pay
on the due dates despite demands. GUCCI filed a complaint before the RTC of Bulacan for collection of
sum of money and damages.

2. Summons were served against respondents through a certain Benita Pagtalunan (respondents' secretary)
on April 22, 2003. A Return of Summons was filed on April 24, 2003 by a Process Server named
Valeriano Badato.

3. On November 18, 2003 GUCCI filed a motion to declare respondents in default which the trial court
granted. After presentation of evidence ex-parte, the trial court rendered judgment that respondents pay
GUCCI their respective amounts due plus legal interest. GUCCI moved for issuance of writ of execution
which was granted.

4. Sheriff Felixberto Samonte levied respondents' house and lot and was scheduled to be sold at a public
auction when the CA issued a TRO. CA annulled trial court judgment on grounds that it did not acquire
jurisdiction over the persons of the respondents since they were not validly served with summons and
neither did they voluntarily appear in court. It was also stated that no explanation why resort to substituted
service of summons was made, hence respondents were deprived of their right to due process.

5. CA denied GUCCI's MR hence this petition.

(Petitioner and Respondents specific contentions were not included since generally the petitioner claimed
that CA is wrong, while respondents claim CA is correct that proper service of summons wasn’t done)

ISSUES (Only the syllabus issue was included)

Whether or not summons was validly served on the respondents? – No.

RATIO

RULE: In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary for the court
to validly try and decide the case. Jurisdiction over the person of a resident defendant can be acquired by
personal service of summons. If he cannot be personally served with summons within a reasonable time,
substituted service may be made. The proper service of summons acquires jurisdiction over the person. In
the absence of a valid waiver, trial and judgment without such service are null and void.

A substituted service must: (a) indicate the impossibility of service of summons within a reasonable
time, (b) specify the efforts exerted to locate the petitioners, and (c) state that it was served on a

2
person of sufficient age and discretion residing therein or with a competent person in charge if in an office

APPLICATION: In the instant case, the CA is correct in ruling that since substituted service was availed
of, a report should be made stating that Pagtalunan has a relationship of trust and confidence with the
respondents so as to ensure receipt and notification of the summons.

RULE: Substituted service may only be availed of when the respondents could not be served personally
within a reasonable period of time, and such impossibility of prompt service must be shown by stating
that earnest efforts have been made to find the respondents personally and that such efforts have failed.
Any substituted service other than that authorized under Section 7 is deemed ineffective and contrary to
law.

APPLICATION: Granting that Pagtalunan is the personal secretary of Aida Torres, there is no showing
that the former had indeed a relationship of trust and confidence with the three respondents. It appears
that the process server hastily and capriciously resorted to substituted service of summons only on his
first attempt without ascertaining the whereabouts of the respondents. Such service of summons is not
binding upon respondents Nonilo and Sheryl Ann Torres whose relationship with Pagtalunan was neither
readily ascertained nor adequately explained in the Return of Summons. Also, no earnest efforts were
made to locate respondent Aida Torres who was allegedly working abroad at the time summons was
served on her person. No explanation why substituted service was resorted to through Pagtalunan was
stated in the Return.

The Return of Summons by the process server showed that no effort was exerted and no positive step was
taken to locate and serve the summons personally on respondents. Without specifying the details of the
attendant circumstances or of the efforts exerted to serve the summons, a general statement that such
efforts were made will not suffice for purposes of complying with the rules of substituted service of
summons.

The ineffective substituted service acquires no jurisdiction over the respondents, hence the judgment by
default, writ of execution, and auction sale of the levied property are all null and void

DISPOSTIVE PORTION
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated August 24, 2005 in CA-G.R. SP
No. 89974, annulling the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan, Branch 14, dated September 15, 2004 in
Civil Case No. 232-M-2003 for having been rendered without jurisdiction and the Resolution dated and December 9,
2005, denying the motion for reconsideration, are AFFIRMED.

NO SEPARATE OPINION

OTHER NOTES