This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-12-04 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The necessity of stating in the process server's Return or Proof of Service the material facts and circumstances sustaining the validity of substituted service was explained by this Court in Hamilton v. Levy,[31] from which we quote: x x x The pertinent facts and circumstances attendant to the service of summons must be stated in the proof of service or Officer's Return; otherwise, any substituted service made in lieu of personal service cannot be upheld. This is necessary because substituted service is in derogation of the usual method of service. It is a method extraordinary in character and, hence, may be used only as prescribed and in the circumstances authorized by statute. Here, no such explanation was made. Failure to faithfully, strictly, and fully comply with the requirements of substituted service renders said service ineffective.[32] | |||||
|
2002-07-03 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| In the absence of even the barest compliance with the procedure for substituted service of summons outlined in the Rules of Court, the presumption of regularity in the performance of public functions does not apply.[47] It is unmistakable that the process server hastily served the summons upon petitioner Sandoval by substituted service without first attempting to personally serve the process. This violates the rule granting absolute preference to personal service of summons and, only secondarily, when the defendant cannot be promptly served in person and after compliance with stringent formal and substantive requirements, permitting resort to substituted service. In light of the defective and irregular substituted service of summons, the HRET did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of petitioner and consequently the period within which to file his answer with counter-protest did not start to run. | |||||