This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-01-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Following the explicit language of the NLRC Rules, service of summons on respondent Perez should be made personally. But was personal service of summons practicable? Conversely, was substituted service of summons justified? Obviously, in this case, personal service of summons was not practicable. By respondent Perez's own admission, she was out of town during the entire proceedings before the Labor Arbiter.[34] Given this admission, she would be unable to personally receive the summons and later the notices from the Labor Arbiter. Thus, even if the bailiff would return at some other time to personally serve the summons on respondent Perez, it would still yield the same result. To proceed with personal service of summons on respondent Perez who unequivocally admits that she was out of town during the entire proceedings before the Labor Arbiter would not only be impractical and futile - it would be absurd.[35] While we are not unmindful of the NLRC rules which state that service of summons should be made personally, considering the circumstances in the instant case, we find that service of summons at TSL, respondent Perez's place of business,[36] amounts to substantial compliance with the Rules.[37] In the fairly recent case of Scenarios v. Vinluan,[38] service of summons by registered mail at therein petitioners' place of business was considered valid. This Court declared in the said case that technical rules of procedure are not strictly applied in quasi-judicial proceedings; only substantial compliance is required. That the summons was served in the premises of therein petitioners' office was enough to convince the court that the service of said processes was completed and resultantly, the requirement of notice has been served.[39] | |||||
|
2006-05-02 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| In Pabon v. NLRC,[26] the Court elucidated on the definition of agent under Section 13, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, thus:Black's Law Dictionary defines an "agent" as "a business representative, whose function is to bring about, modify, affect, accept performance of, or terminate contractual obligations between principal and third person." To this extent, an "agent" may also be shown to represent his principal in some one or more of his relations to others, even though he may not have the power to enter into contracts. The rules on service of process make service on "agent" sufficient. It does not, in any way, distinguish whether the "agent" be general or special, but is complied with even by a service upon an agent having limited authority to represent his principal. As such, it does not necessarily connote an officer of the corporation. x x x[27] | |||||