This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-11-23 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Under said rule, personal service and filing of pleadings and other papers is a mandatory mode, especially when the peculiar circumstances of the case -- such as the proximity of the office of a party's counsel to the court or to the office of the opposing party's counsel -- make such mode practicable.[19] If another mode is employed, there must be attached to the pleading or paper, a written explanation of such recourse. Omission of a written explanation will give the court cause to expunge the pleading or paper not personally served or filed.[20] And ordinarily, such exercise of discretion by the court will not be overruled on appeal, except when: a) on the face of the affidavit of service, it is patent that personal service and filing is impractical, such as when the parties or their counsels live in different provinces;[21] b) there is prima facie merit in the pleading or paper expunged;[22] and c) the issue raised therein is of substantial importance.[23] Under these exceptional circumstances the lack of written explanation may be excused and the pleading or paper served or filed, accepted. | |||||
|
2007-04-03 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| However, in Ello v. Court of Appeals,[9] the Court defined the circumstances when the court may exercise its discretionary power under Section 11 of Rule 13, viz:However, such discretionary power of the court must be exercised properly and reasonably, taking into account the following factors: (1) "the practicability of personal service;" (2) "the importance of the subject matter of the case or the issues involved therein;" and (3) "the prima facie merit of the pleading sought to be expunged for violation of Section 11. x x x"[10] | |||||
|
2006-01-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| SEC. 11. Priorities in modes of service and filing. Whenever practicable, the service and filing of pleadings and other papers shall be done personally. Except with respect to papers emanating from the court, a resort to other modes must be accompanied by a written explanation why the service or filing was not done personally. A violation of this Rule may be cause to consider the paper as not filed. The requirement for personal service is mandatory such that Section 11, Rule 13 gives the court the discretion to consider a pleading or paper as not filed if the other modes of service of filing were resorted to and no written explanation was made as to why personal service was not done.[16] In the seminal case of Solar Team Entertainment, Inc. v. Judge Ricafort,[17] we stressed that strictest compliance with Section 11 of Rule 13 is mandated beginning one (1) month from the promulgation of said decision; i.e. one month from 05 August 1998. | |||||