This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-09-01 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| Second, there is valid substituted service of summons on Consulta at his place of business with some competent person in charge thereof. According to the sheriff's return, which is prima facie evidence of the facts it states,[19] he served a copy of the complaint on Canave, an authorized representative of both Consulta and Sarayba.[20] Besides Consulta's bare allegations, he did not present evidence to rebut the presumption of regularity on the manner that the sheriff performed his official duty.[21] Nor did Consulta present clear and convincing evidence that Canave was not competent to receive the summons and the attached documents for him. | |||||
|
2010-09-01 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| Further, this Court has ruled that "it is not necessary that the person in charge of the defendant's regular place of business be specifically authorized to receive the summons. It is enough that he appears to be in charge."[23] In this case, Canave, a secretary whose job description necessarily includes receiving documents and other correspondence, would have the semblance of authority to accept the court documents. | |||||
|
2009-07-14 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| As to the reliance of the Court of Appeals on the second paragraph of the Return on Service of Summons stating that the original and duplicate copies of the Summons were returned "UNSERVED," the Court finds the same utterly misplaced. A simple reading of the first paragraph of the Return on Service of Summons, which contains the circumstances surrounding the service of the summons on the persons of the respondent spouses Mogol, manifestly reveals that the summons and the copy of the complaint were already validly served on the said respondents. They merely refused to receive or obtain a copy of the same. The certificate of service of the process server is prima facie evidence of the facts as set out therein. This is fortified by the presumption of the regularity of performance of official duty. To overcome the presumption of regularity of official functions in favor of such sheriff's return, the evidence against it must be clear and convincing. Sans the requisite quantum of proof to the contrary, the presumption stands deserving of faith and credit.[36] In the instant case, it is worthwhile to note that the facts stated in the first paragraph of the Return on Service of Summons were not at all disputed by the respondent spouses Mogol. | |||||