RULE 14 SUMMONS Section 1. Clerk to issue summons.

Sec.

Upon the filing of the complaint and the payment of the requisite legal fees, the clerk of court shall forthwith issue the corresponding summons to the defendants. 2. Contents. The summons shall be directed to the defendant, signed by the clerk of court under seal, and contain: (a) the name of the court and the names of the parties to the action; (b) a direction that the defendant answer within the time fixed by these Rules; (c) a notice that unless the defendant so answers, plaintiff will take judgment by default and may be granted the relief applied for. A copy of the complaint and order for appointment of guardian ad litem, if any, shall be attached to the original and each copy of the summons. 3. By whom served. The summons may be served by the sheriff, his deputy, or other proper court officer, or for justifiable reasons by any suitable person authorized by the court issuing the summons. 4. Return. When the service has been completed, the server shall, within five (5) days therefrom, serve a copy of the return, personally or by registered mail, to the plaintiff's counsel, and shall return the summons to the clerk who issued it, accompanied by proof of service. 5. Issuance of alias summons. If a summons is returned without being served on any or all of the defendants, the server shall also serve a copy of the return on the plaintiff's counsel, stating the reasons for the failure of service, within five (5) days therefrom. In such a case, or if the summons has been lost, the clerk, on demand of the plaintiff, may issue an alias summons. 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. 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. 8. Service upon entity without juridical personality.

Sec.

Sec.

Sec.

Sec.

Sec.

Sec.

Sec.

When persons associated in an entity without juridical personality are sued under the name by which they are generally or commonly known, service may be effected upon all the defendants by serving upon any one of them, or upon the person in charge of the office or place of business maintained in such name. But such service shall not bind individually any person whose connection with the entity has, upon due notice, been severed before the action was brought. 9. Service upon prisoners. When the defendant is a prisoner confined in a jail or institution, service shall be effected upon him by the officer having the management of such jail or institution who is deemed deputized as a special sheriff for said purpose. 10. Service upon minors and incompetents. When the defendant is a minor, insane or otherwise an incompetent, service shall be made upon him personally and on his legal guardian if he has one, or if none, upon his guardian ad litem whose appointment shall be applied for by the plaintiff. In the case of a minor, service may also be made on his father or mother. 11. Service upon domestic private juridical entity. When the defendant is a corporation, partnership or association organized under the laws of the Philippines with a juridical personality, service may be made on the president, managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-house counsel. 12. Service upon foreign private juridical entity. When the defendant is a foreign private juridical entity which has transacted business in the Philippines, service may be made on its resident agent designated in accordance with law for that purpose, or, if there be no such agent, on the government official designated by law to that effect, or on any of its officers or agents within the Philippines. 13. Service upon public corporations.

Sec.

Sec.

Sec.

Sec.

When the defendant is the Republic of the Philippines, service may be effected on the Solicitor General; in case of a province, city or municipality, or like public corporations, service may be effected on its executive head, or on such other officer or officers as the law or the court may direct. Sec. 14. Service upon defendant whose identity or whereabouts are unknown. In any action where the defendant is designated as an unknown owner, or the like, or whenever his whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry, service may, by leave of court, be effected upon him by publication in a newspaper of general circulation and in such places and for such time as the court may order. 15. Extraterritorial service. When the defendant does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, and the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff or relates to, or the subject of which is, property within the Philippines, in which the defendant has or claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent, or in which the relief demanded consists, wholly or in part, in excluding the defendant from any interest therein, or the property of the defendant has been attached within the Philippines,

Sec.

service may, by leave of court, be effected out of the Philippines by personal service as under section 6; or by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such time as the court may order, in which case a copy of the summons and order of the court shall be sent by registered mail to the last known address of the defendant, or in any other manner the court may deem sufficient. Any order granting such leave shall specify a reasonable time, which shall not be less than sixty (60) days after notice, within which the defendant must answer. Sec. 16. Residents temporarily out of the Philippines. When any action is commenced against a defendant who ordinarily resides within the Philippines, but who is temporarily out of it, service may, by leave of court, be also effected out of the Philippines, as under the preceding section. Sec. 17. Leave of court. Any application to the court under this Rule for leave to effect service in any manner for which leave of court is necessary shall be made by motion in writing, supported by affidavit of the plaintiff or some person on his behalf, setting forth the grounds for the application. Sec. 18. Proof of service. The proof of service of a summons shall be made in writing by the server and shall set forth the manner, place, and date of service; shall specify any papers which have been served with the process and the name of the person who received the same; and shall be sworn to when made by a person other than a sheriff or his deputy. Sec. 19. Proof of service by publication. If the service has been made by publication, service may be proved by the affidavit of the printer, his foreman or principal clerk, or of the editor, business or advertising manager, to which affidavit a copy of the publication shall be attached, and by an affidavit showing the deposit of a copy of the summons and order for publication in the post office, postage prepaid, directed to the defendant by registered mail to his last known address. Sec. 20. Voluntary appearance. The defendant's voluntary appearance in the action shall be equivalent to service of summons. The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant shall not be deemed a voluntary appearance.

F. Summons Philamlife v. Breva, 442 SCRA 217 (November 11, 2004) Case should not be dismissed simply because original summons was wrongfully served. It should be difficult to conceive, for example, that when a defendant personally appears before a court complaining that he had not been validly summoned, that the case filed against him should be dismissed. An alias summons can be actually served on said defendant. *service of summons can be handed over anytime *any action for Section 14 and 16 *action in rem and quasi in rem, for Section 15 1. Nature and purpose of summons in relation to actions in personam, in rem and quasi in rem 2. Voluntary appearance In Atiko Trans Inc. and Cheng Lie Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Prudential Guarantee and Assurance Inc., G.R. No. 167545, August 17, 2011, Atiko Trans was served with summons thru its cashier Cristina while Cheng Lie, a foreign shipping company doing business in the Philippines thru its duly authorized shipagent defendant Atiko Trans, was served with summons thru its agent. Both defendants were declared in default. Judgment was then rendered against the two defendants by the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati City. Atiko Trans then filed its Notice of Appeal to the Regional Trial Court, its Memorandum of Appeal, its Motion for Reconsideration, and its Petition for Review of the decision of the RTC. It never questioned the jurisdiction of the MeTC over its person. According to the SC, when the defendant is a domestic corporation, service of summons may be made only upon the persons enumerated in Section 11, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. However, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant can be acquired not only by proper service of summons but also by defendants voluntary appearance without expressly objecting to the courts jurisdiction, as embodied in Section 20, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, viz: SEC. 20. Voluntary appearance. The defendants voluntary appearance in the action shall be equivalent to service of summons. The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant shall not be deemed a voluntary appearance. In the case at bench, when Atiko filed its Notice of Appeal, Memorandum of Appeal, Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision of the RTC, and Petition for Review, it never questioned the jurisdiction of the MeTC over its person. The filing of these pleadings seeking affirmative relief amounted to voluntary appearance and, hence, rendered the alleged lack of jurisdiction moot. In Palma v. Galvez (615 SCRA 86) this Court reiterated the oft-repeated rule that "the filing of motions seeking affirmative relief, such as, to admit answer, for additional time to file answer, for reconsideration of a default judgment, and to lift order of default with motion for reconsideration, are considered voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court." Moreover, petitioners contention is a mere afterthought. It was only in their Memoran dum filed with this Court where they claimed, for the first time, that Atiko was not properly served with summons. In La Naval Drug Corporation v. Court of Appeals (236 SCRA 78) it

was held that the issue of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant must be seasonably raised. Failing to do so, a party who invoked the jurisdiction of a court to secure an affirmative relief cannot be allowed to disavow such jurisdiction after unsuccessfully trying to obtain such relief. MeTC however did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of Cheng Lie. Before it was amended by A.M. No. 11-3-6-SC, Section 12 of Rule 14 of the Rules of Court reads: SEC. 12. Service upon foreign private juridical entity. When the defendant is a foreign private juridical entity which has transacted business in the Philippines, service may be made on its resident agent designated in accordance with law for that purpose, or, if there be no such agent, on the government official designated by law to that effect, or on any of its officers or agents within the Philippines. Elucidating on the above provision of the Rules of Court, this Court declared in Pioneer International, Ltd. v. Guadiz, Jr. (535 SCRA 584) that when the defendant is a foreign juridical entity, service of summons may be made upon: 1. Its resident agent designated in accordance with law for that purpose; 2. The government official designated by law to receive summons if the corporation does not have a resident agent; or, 3. Any of the corporations officers or agents withi n the Philippines. In the case at bench, no summons was served upon Cheng Lie in any manner prescribed above. It should be recalled that Atiko Trans was not properly served with summons as the person who received it on behalf of Atiko, cashier Cristina, is not one of the corporate officers enumerated in Section 11 of Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. The MeTC acquired jurisdiction over the person of Atiko Trans not thru valid service of summons but by the latters voluntary appearance. Thus, there being no proper service of summons upon Atiko to speak of, it follows that the MeTC never acquired jurisdiction over the person of Cheng Lie. To rule otherwise would create an absurd situation where service of summons is valid upon the purported principal but not on the latters co-defendant cum putative agent despite the fact that service was coursed thru said agent. Indeed, in order for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of a defendant foreign private juridical entity under Section 12, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, there must be prior valid service of summons upon the agent of such defendant. Also, the records of this case is bereft of any showing that cashier Cristina is a government official designated by law to receive summons on behalf of Cheng Lie or that she is an officer or agent of Cheng Lie within the Philippines. Hence, her receipt of summons bears no significance insofar as Cheng Lie is concerned. At this point, we emphasize that the requirements of the rule on summons must be strictly followed, lest we ride roughshod on defendants right to due process. With regard to Cheng Lies filing of numerous pleadings, the same cannot be considered as voluntary appearance. Unlike Atiko Trans, Cheng Lie never sought affirmative relief other than the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over its person. From the very beginning, it has consistently questioned the validity of the service of summons and the jurisdiction of the MeTC over its person. It does not escape our attention though that Cheng Lies pleadings do not indicate that the same were filed by way of special appearance. But these, to our mind, are mere

inaccuracies in the title of the pleadings. What is important are the allegations contained therein which consistently resisted the jurisdiction of the trial court. Thus, Cheng Lie cannot be considered to have submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the courts. In fine, since the MeTC never acquired jurisdiction over the person of Cheng Lie, its decision insofar as Cheng Lie is concerned is void. Thus, Cheng Lie was improperly declared in default. Applying the above disquisition, the MeTC likewise erred in declaring Cheng Lie in default. Settled is the rule that a defendant cannot be declared in default unless such declaration is preceded by a valid service of summons. 3. Personal service AMENDMENT OF SECTION 12, RULE 14 OF THE RULES OF COURT ON SERVICE UPON FOREIGN PRIVATE JURIDICAL ENTITY. As amended, said provision of the Rules of Court now reads:

SEC. 12. Service upon foreign private juridical entity. When the defendant is a foreign private juridical entity which has transacted business in the Philippines, service may be made on its resident agent designated in accordance with law for that purpose, or, if there be no such agent, on the government official designated by law to that effect, or on any of its officers or agents within the Philippines.

If the foreign private juridical entity is not registered in the Philippines or has no resident agent, service may, with leave of court, be effected out of the Philippines through any of the following means:

a) By personal service coursed through the appropriate court in the foreign country with the assistance of the Department of Foreign Affairs; b) By publication once in a newspaper of general circulation in the country where the defendant may be found and by serving a copy of the summons and the court order by-registered mail at the last known address of the defendant; c) By facsimile or any recognized electronic means that could generate proof of service; or d) By such other means as the court may in its discretion direct. 4. Substituted service In Samartino v. Raon (July 3, 2002), the return failed to show the reason why personal service could not be made. It failed to state that prompt and personal service was rendered impossible. Thus, the substituted service was considered ineffective. SC cited SC Adm. Circular No. 59 issued on November 19, 1989 which stressed the importance of strict compliance with the requisites for a valid substituted service of summons. It states: The substituted service should be availed only when the defendant cannot be served promptly in person. Impossibility of prompt service should be shown by stating the efforts made to find

the defendant personally and the failure of such efforts. The statement should be made in the proof of service. This is necessary because substituted service is in derogation of the usual method of service. The return must show the following: (a) indicate the impossibility of service of summons within a reasonable time; (b) specify the efforts exerted to locate the defendant; (c) state that the summons was served upon a person of sufficient age and discretion who is residing in the address, or who is in charge of the office or regular place of business of the defendant. (Jose v. Boyon, October 23, 2003) Note, in Jose, when substituted service was resorted to by the process server allegedly because efforts to serve the summons personally on the defendants failed, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to effect summons by publication, which was granted. The SC held that extraterritorial service of summons or summons by publication applies only when the action is in rem or quasi in rem. The first is an action against the thing itself instead of against the defendants person; in the latter, an individual is named as defendants and the purpose is to subject that individuals right in a piece of property to the obligation or loan burdening it. In the instant case, what was filed before the TC was an action for specific performance directed against the defendants. While the suit incidentally involved a piece of land, the ownership or possession thereof was not put in issue since they did not assert any interest or right over it. Moreover, an action for specific performance is an action in personam. Having failed to serve the summons on defendants property, the RTC did not validly acquire jurisdiction over their persons. VYEs comment: In Jose, Justice Panganiban made a sweeping statement that service of publication is applicable in actions in rem and quasi in rem but not in personal suits such as an action for specific performance. Herrera noted that under previous rulings, summons by publication has been held as not permissible in actions in personam. This according to Herrera is too broad and should not be made to apply to resident defendants. It is only when the defendant is not a resident of the Philippines and cannot be found in the Philippines that the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over its person in actions in personam. In Asiavest Limited v. Court of Appeals (September 25, 1998), the SC explained that 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 who does not voluntarily appear in court can be acquired by personal service of summons as provided under Sec. 6, Rule 14. If he cannot be personally served with summons service may be affected by substituted service in accordance with Sec. 8. If he is temporarily out of the country, any of the of the following modes of servie may be resorted to: (1) substituted service set forth in Sec. 8; (2) 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. Otherwise stated, a resident defendant in an action in personam who cannot be be personally served with summons may be summoned either by means of substituted service in accordance with Rule 14, Sec. 8 or by publication as provided in Sec. 17 and 18 of the same Rule. It is when the action in personam is against a non-resident defendant who cannot be found in the Philippines and does not voluntarily submit himself to the jurisdiciton of the Philippines that summons by publication cannot be made upon him for the purpose of acquiring jurisdiction. In such case, personal service of summons within the state is essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction over his person. This method of service is possible if such defendant is physically present in the country. If he is not found therein, the court

cannot acquire jurisdiction over his person, and therefore cannot validly try and decide the case against him. Manotoc v. CA, 499 SCRA 21 (August 16, 2006) (1) Impossibility of Prompt Personal Service -- The party relying on substituted service or the sheriff must show that defendant cannot be served promptly or there is impossibility of prompt service. Section 8, Rule 14 provides that the plaintiff or the sheriff is given a "reasonable time" to serve the summons to the defendant in person, but no specific time frame is mentioned. "Reasonable time" is defined as "so much time as is necessary under the circumstances for a reasonably prudent and diligent man to do, conveniently, what the contract or duty requires that should be done, having a regard for the rights and possibility of loss, if any, to the other party." Under the Rules, the service of summons has no set period. However, when the court, clerk of court, or the plaintiff asks the sheriff to make the return of the summons and the latter submits the return of summons, then the validity of the summons lapses. The plaintiff may then ask for an alias summons if the service of summons has failed. What then is a reasonable time for the sheriff to effect a personal service in order to demonstrate impossibility of prompt service? To the plaintiff, "reasonable time" means no more than seven (7) days since an expeditious processing of a complaint is what a plaintiff wants. To the sheriff, "reasonable time" means 15 to 30 days because at the end of the month, it is a practice for the branch clerk of court to require the sheriff to submit a return of the summons assigned to the sheriff for service. The Sheriffs Return provides data to the Clerk of Court, which the clerk uses in the Monthly Report of Cases to be submitted to the Office of the Court Administrator within the first ten (10) days of the succeeding month. Thus, one month from the issuance of summons can be considered "reasonable time" with regard to personal service on the defendant. Sheriffs are asked to discharge their duties on the service of summons with due care, utmost diligence, and reasonable promptness and speed so as not to prejudice the expeditious dispensation of justice. Thus, they are enjoined to try their best efforts to accomplish personal service on defendant. On the other hand, since the defendant is expected to try to avoid and evade service of summons, the sheriff must be resourceful, persevering, canny, and diligent in serving the process on the defendant. For substituted service of summons to be available, there must be several attempts by the sheriff to personally serve the summons within a reasonable period [of one month] which eventually resulted in failure to prove impossibility of prompt service. "Several attempts" means at least three (3) tries, preferably on at least two different dates. In addition, the sheriff must cite why such efforts were unsuccessful. It is only then that impossibility of service can be confirmed or accepted. (2) Specific Details in the Return -- The sheriff must describe in the Return of Summons the facts and circumstances surrounding the attempted personal service. The efforts made to find the defendant and the reasons behind the failure must be clearly narrated in detail in the Return. The date and time of the attempts on personal service, the inquiries made to locate the defendant, the name/s of the occupants of the alleged residence or house of defendant and all other acts done, though futile, to serve the summons on defendant must be specified in the Return to justify substituted service. The form on Sheriffs Return of Summons on Substituted Service prescribed in the Handbook for Sheriffs published by the Philippine Judicial Academy requires a narration of the efforts made to find the defendant personally and the fact of failure. Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 5 dated November 9, 1989 requires that "impossibility of prompt service should be shown by stating the efforts made to find the defendant personally and the failure of such efforts," which should be made in the proof of service.

(3) A Person of Suitable Age and Discretion -- If the substituted service will be effected at defendants house or residence, it should be left with a person of "suitable age and discretion then residing therein." A person of suitable age and discretion is one who has attained the age of full legal capacity (18 years old) and is considered to have enough discernment to understand the importance of a summons. "Discretion" is defined as "the ability to make decisions which represent a responsible choice and for which an understanding of what is lawful, right or wise may be presupposed". Thus, to be of sufficient discretion, such person must know how to read and understand English to comprehend the import of the summons, and fully realize the need to deliver the summons and complaint to the defendant at the earliest possible time for the person to take appropriate action. Thus, the person must have the "relation of confidence" to the defendant, ensuring that the latter would receive or at least be notified of the receipt of the summons. The sheriff must therefore determine if the person found in the alleged dwelling or residence of defendant is of legal age, what the recipients relationship with the defendant is, and whether said person comprehends the significance of the receipt of the summons and his duty to immediately deliver it to the defendant or at least notify the defendant of said receipt of summons. These matters must be clearly and specifically described in the Return of Summons. (4) A Competent Person in Charge -- If the substituted service will be done at defendants office or regular place of business, then it should be served on a competent person in charge of the place. Thus, the person on whom the substituted service will be made must be the one managing the office or business of defendant, such as the president or manager; and such individual must have sufficient knowledge to understand the obligation of the defendant in the summons, its importance, and the prejudicial effects arising from inaction on the summons. Again, these details must be contained in the Return. Pascual v. Pascual (December 4, 2009) reiterated the guidelines in Manotoc. 5. Constructive service (by publication) a. Service upon a defendant where his identity is unknown or where his whereabouts are unknown b. Service upon residents temporarily outside the Philippines 6. Extra-territorial service, when allowed 7. Service upon prisoners and minors 8. Service upon public corporations The case of Republic v. Domingo, G.R. No. 175299, September 14, 2011, 657 SCRA 621, emanated from a complaint for specific performance with damages against the DPWH, Region III. Summon was issued and served on the DPWH, per the Proof of Service, through Nora Cortez, Clerk III of said office as shown by her signature and stamped mark received by said office appearing on the original summons. DPWH was declared in default and Domingo was allowed to present evidence ex parte. The judgment of default became final and thereafter, a writ of execution was issued against DPWH. The OSG then filed a petition for annulment of judgment with the CA arguing that the Republic was not impleaded as an indispensable party. The CA dismissed the petition.

According to the SC, when a suit is directed against an unincorporated government agency, which because it is unincorporated, possesses no juridical peronality of its own, the suit is agains the agencys principal, i.e., the State. In Heirs of Mamerto Manguiat v. Court of Appeals, 562 SCRA 422, where summons was served on the Bureau of Telecommunications (BuTel) which was an agency attached to the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC), the SC cited Rule 14, Sec. 13 which provides that where the defedant is the Republic of the Philippines, service of summons must be made on the Solicitor General. The BuTel is an agency attached to the DOTC created under E.O. No. 546 on July 23, 1979 It is indisputedly part of the Republic and summons should have been served on the Solicitor General. In this case, the complaint for specific performance with damages is against the DPWH, Region III. The DPWH and its regional office are merely agents of the Republic, which is the real party in interest. Thus, as mandated by Sec. 13, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, summons in this case should have been served on the OSG. It is the duty of the plaintiff to implead all the necessary or indispensable parties for the complete determination of the action. It was incumbent upon Domingo to name and implead the proper defendant in his complaint, which is the Republic, and cause the service of summons to made upon the officer mandated by law. The fact that the OSG entered its appearance in other civil cases where the summons were served only upon the DPWH Region III has no bearing in this case. VYEs COMMENT: Rule 14, Sec. 13, says service may be effected on the Solicitor General implying that it is an option and that the summons may be served on the government agency concerned. Apparently, this kind of interpretation is not valid. The SC was emphatic in Republic v. Domingo that summons in this case should have been served on the OSG. 9. Proof of service