Sixto Chu vs. Mach Asia Trading Corp.

(GR 184333, April 1 2013)

FACTS:
 Petitioner Chu previously entered into 2 transactions with respondent Mach Asia for the
purchase of dump trucks and heavy equipment on installment basis
 The purchases were secured by postdated checks which were all subsequently dishonored
prompting Mach Asia to institute a Complaint for Collection
o As such, summons was issued but was served on a security guard of Chu after the
Sheriff could not find Chu in his given address
 Subsequently, Chu was declared in default and judgment was rendered against him
causing him to appeal the decision before the CA
o In the CA, the lower court decision was sustained by stating that the subsequent
service to the security guard was sufficient to satisfy the service requirements
ISSUE:
 Whether substituted service on the defendant’s security guard is sufficient to qualify as
personal service to the defendant himself
RULING:
 NO, summons should be personally served on the defendant. It is only when summons
cannot be served personally within a reasonable period of time that substituted service
may be resorted to.