Arnel Sagana vs. Richard A. Francisco, G.R. No. 161952, 02 October 2009.

DEL CASTILLO, J.

FACTS: Petitioner Sagana filed a Complaint for Damages against respondent

Francisco. In relation to the case, the process server attempted to serve summons at
respondent’s address but was unsuccessful because the occupant of the house at the
given address refused to give his identity and told the same that respondent is unknown
at said address. The server also declared that diligent efforts were exerted to serve the
summons but these proved to be futile. Subsequently, the trial court attempted to serve
summons to respondent’s office through registered mail. However, despite three
notices, respondent failed to pick up the summons. Thereafter, the RTC dismissed the
case on account of petitioner’s lack of interest to prosecute. For this reason, petitioner
filed a Motion for Reconsideration to which the same court granted. Thereafter, the
process server again tried to serve the summons at the address of the respondent but
no avail. As such, he left a copy of the summons to Michael Francisco, respondent’s
brother. Thereafter, petitioner filed a Motion to Declare Defendant in Default, alleging
that despite service of summons, respondent still failed to file an Answer. In the
meantime, the respondent’s brother denies having received the summons or that he was
authorized to receive summons on behalf of his brother.

ISSUE: Whether there was proper substituted service of summons upon the
respondent?

RULING: YES. For substituted service of summons to be valid, the following must
be demonstrated: (a) that personal service of summons within a reasonable time was
impossible; (b) that efforts were exerted to locate the party; and (c) that the summons
was served upon a person of sufficient age and discretion residing at the party's
residence or upon a competent person in charge of the party's office or regular place of
business. It is likewise required that the pertinent facts proving these circumstances be
stated in the proof of service or in the officer's return.

In this case, personal service of summons was twice attempted by the trial
court, although unsuccessfully. In the first attempt, the resident of the house refused to
receive the summons; worse, he would not even give his name. In the second attempt,
respondents own brother refused to sign for receipt of the summons, and then later
claimed that he never received a copy, despite his participation in the proceedings. The
trial court also thrice attempted to contact the respondent through his place of work,
but to no avail. These diligent efforts to locate the respondent were noted in the first
sheriff's return, the process server's notation, as well as the records of the case.
 Clearly, personal service of summons was made impossible by the acts of
the respondent in refusing to reveal his whereabouts, and by the act of his brother in
claiming that respondent no longer lived at No. 36 Sampaguita St., yet failing to disclose
his brother's location.