Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. PEPITO AND LORETO LAUS v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 183370 2015-08-17	NATION PETROLEUM GAS v. RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION PERALTA, J.
Petitioners filed through counsel a Special Appearance with Motion to Dismiss[8] on November 15, 2006. They asserted that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the corporation since the summons was improperly served upon Claudia Abante (Abante), who is a mere liaison officer and not one of the corporate officers specifically enumerated in Section 11, Rule 14 of the Rules. Likewise, the individual petitioners argued that the sheriff and/or process server did not personally approach them at their respective address as stated in the Complaint. Neither did he resort to substituted service of summons, and that, even if he did, there was no strict compliance with Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules. The Court's pronouncements in Spouses Mason v. Court of Appeals,[9] E. B. Villarosa & Partner Co., Ltd. v. Judge Benito,[10] Laus v. Court of Appeals,[11] and Samartino v. Raon[12] were invoked in praying for the dismissal of the complaint and the discharge of the writ of attachment.
	GR No. 150768 2008-08-20	HEIRS OF MAMERTO MANGUIAT v. CA PUNO, CJ.
Summons must be served upon a party for valid judgment to be rendered against him. This not only comports with basic procedural law but the constitutional postulate of due process. The disputable presumption that an official duty has been regularly performed will not apply where it is patent from the sheriff's or server's return that it is defective.[22]
	GR NO. 144568 2007-07-03	GUILLERMA S. SABLAS v. ESTERLITA S. SABLAS CORONA, J.
[10] Laus v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 101256, 08 March 1993, 219 SCRA 688.
	GR NO. 170926 2006-09-15	GUIGUINTO CREDIT COOPERATIVE v. AIDA TORRES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
If the defendant, besides setting up in a motion to dismiss his objection to the jurisdiction of the court, alleges at the same time any other ground for dismissing the action, or seeks an affirmative relief in the motion, he is deemed to have submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court.[24] In Laus v. Court of Appeals,[25] we reiterated that 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.[26] We held that the pre-condition that substituted service may be resorted to only if personal service cannot be made "within a reasonable time" must be strictly followed.