Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PABLO B. CASIMINA v. EMILIO B. LEGASPI

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 184333 2013-04-01	SIXTO N. CHU v. MACH ASIA TRADING CORPORATION PERALTA, J.
It is to be noted that in case of substituted service, there should be a report indicating that the person who received the summons in the defendant's behalf was one with whom the defendant had a relation of confidence, ensuring that the latter would actually receive the summons.[16]
	GR No. 170122 2009-10-12	CLARITA DEPAKAKIBO GARCIA v. SANDIGANBAYAN VELASCO JR., J.
It is basic that a court must acquire jurisdiction over a party for the latter to be bound by its decision or orders. Valid service of summons, by whatever mode authorized by and proper under the Rules, is the means by which a court acquires jurisdiction over a person.[22]
	GR No. 175910 2009-07-30	ATTY. ROGELIO E. SARSABA v. FE VDA. DE TE PERALTA, J.
hand, 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 may acquire jurisdiction over his person.[41]
	GR No. 177598 2008-10-16	ROBERT SAN PEDRO v. WILLY ONG CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
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 may acquire jurisdiction over his person. Any judgment without such service in the absence of a valid waiver is null and void.[24]
	GR NO. 163287 2007-04-27	ORION SECURITY CORPORATION v. KALFAM ENTERPRISES QUISUMBING, J.
Courts acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiffs upon the filing of the complaint. On the other hand, jurisdiction over the defendants in a civil case is acquired either through the service of summons upon them or through their voluntary appearance in court and their submission to its authority.[17]
	GR NO. 155392 2006-12-06	ERLINDA GUANZON v. ANDREW P. ARRADAZA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
b) by leaving the copies at defendant's office or regular place of business with some competent person in charge thereof.[24] The certificate of service of the process server of the court a quo is prima facie evidence of the facts as set out therein.[25] 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.