GUIGUINTO CREDIT COOP V. TORRES (REMEDIAL)

Summons is a writ by which the defendant is notified of the action brought against him. Service of such writ is the means by which the court acquires jurisdiction over his person. Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is acquired through coercive process, generally by the service of summons issued by the court, or through the defendant's voluntary appearance or submission to the court.

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.

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 under Section 7, Rule 14.

If he cannot be personally served with summons within a reasonable time, substituted service may be made in accordance with Section 8. 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. other manner the court may deem sufficient.

In these types of civil actions, summons on the defendant must be served by handing a copy thereof to the defendant in person, or in case of refusal, by tendering it to him. If efforts to find defendant personally makes prompt service impossible, service may be effected by leaving copies of the summons at defendant's house with some person of suitable age and discretion residing therein, or by leaving the copies at the defendant's office or regular place of business with some competent person in charge thereof.

In the instant case, the CA correctly rules that since substituted service was availed of in lieu of personal service, there should be a report stating that Pagtalunan was one with whom respondents had a relationship of trust and confidence that would ensure that the latter will receive or be notified of the summons issued in their names.

This is because 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.

It appears that the process server hastily and capriciously resorted to substituted service of summons without ascertaining the whereabouts of the respondents.

No earnest efforts were made to locate respondent Aid 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.

A general statement that such efforts were made will not suffice for purposes of complying with the rules of substituted service of summons.

Well-settled is the rule that summons must be served upon the defendant himself. It is only when the defendant cannot be served personally within a reasonable time that substituted service may be resorted to ans such impossibility of prompt service should be shown by stating that efforts have been made to find the defendant personally and that such efforts have failed.