Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FEDERICO S. SANDOVAL II v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 157943 2013-09-04	PEOPLE v. GILBERT REYES WAGAS BERSAMIN, J.
Finally, Ligaray's declaration that it was Wagas who had transacted with him over the telephone was not reliable because he did not explain how he determined that the person with whom he had the telephone conversation was really Wagas whom he had not yet met or known before then. We deem it essential for purposes of reliability and trustworthiness that a telephone conversation like that one Ligaray supposedly had with the buyer of rice to be first authenticated before it could be received in evidence. Among others, the person with whom the witness conversed by telephone should be first satisfactorily identified by voice recognition or any other means.[32] Without the authentication, incriminating another person just by adverting to the telephone conversation with him would be all too easy. In this respect, an identification based on familiarity with the voice of the caller, or because of clearly recognizable peculiarities of the caller would have sufficed.[33] The identity of the caller could also be established by the caller's self-identification, coupled with additional evidence, like the context and timing of the telephone call, the contents of the statement challenged, internal patterns, and other distinctive characteristics, and disclosure of knowledge of facts known peculiarly to the caller.[34]
	GR No. 171916 2009-12-04	CONSTANTINO A. PASCUAL v. LOURDES S. PASCUAL PERALTA, J.
Petitioner further states that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions must be applied to the present case. He expounds on the fact that as between the process server's return of substituted service, which carries with it the presumption of regularity and the respondent's self-serving assertion that she only came to know of the case against her when she received a copy of the petitioner's motion to declare her in default, the process server's return is undoubtedly more deserving of credit. The said argument, however, is only meritorious, provided that there was a strict compliance with the procedure for serving a summons. In the absence of even the barest compliance with the procedure for a substituted service of summons outlined in the Rules of Court, the presumption of regularity in the performance of public functions does not apply.[33]
	GR No. 183802 2009-09-17	ALEXANDER TAM WONG v. CATHERINE FACTOR-KOYAMA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is well-established that a summons upon a respondent or a defendant must be served by handing a copy thereof to him in person or, if he refuses to receive it, by tendering it to him. Personal service of summons most effectively ensures that the notice desired under the constitutional requirement of due process is accomplished.[35] The essence of personal service is the handing or tendering of a copy of the summons to the defendant himself.[36]
	GR No. 177007 2009-07-14	SANSIO PHILIPPINES v. SPS. ALICIA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is well-established that summons upon a respondent or a defendant must be served by handing a copy thereof to him in person or, if he refuses to receive it, by tendering it to him. Personal service of summons most effectively ensures that the notice desired under the constitutional requirement of due process is accomplished.[29] The essence of personal service is the handing or tendering of a copy of the summons to the defendant himself,[30] wherever he may be found; that is, wherever he may be, provided he is in the Philippines.[31]
	GR No. 179813 2008-12-18	DATU PAX PAKUNG S. MANGUDADATU v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In Federico S. Sandoval II v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) and Aurora Rosario A. Oreta,[16] this Court has held that in the matter of service of summons, Sections 6 and 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court apply suppletorily to the rules of the HRET. To quote from that case:The matter of serving summons is governed by the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which applies suppletorily to the Revised Rules of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal through its Rule 80.23 Sections 6 and 7 of Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provide -
	GR No. 172595 2008-04-10	BIENVENIDO EJERCITO v. M.R. VARGAS CONSTRUCTION TINGA, J,
Since respondent enterprise is only a sole proprietorship, an entity without juridical personality, the suit for injunction may be instituted only against its owner, Marcial Vargas. Accordingly summons should have been served on Vargas himself, following Rule 14, Sections 6[36] and 7[37] of the Rules of Court on personal service and substituted service. In the instant case, no service of summons, whether personal or substituted, was effected on Vargas. It is well-established that summons upon a respondent or a defendant must be served by handing a copy thereof to him in person or, if he refuses to receive it, by tendering it to him. Personal service of summons most effectively ensures that the notice desired under the constitutional requirement of due process is accomplished. If however efforts to find him personally would make prompt service impossible, service may be completed by substituted service, i.e., by leaving copies of the summons at his dwelling house or residence with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein or by leaving the copies at his office or regular place of business with some competent person in charge thereof.[38]
	GR NO. 168632 2006-10-16	FAR EASTERN UNIVERSITY - DR. NICANOR REYES MEDICAL FOUNDATION v. FEU-NRMF EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-ALLIANCE OF FILIPINO WORKERS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Substituted service derogates the regular method of personal service. It is therefore required that statutory restrictions for effecting substituted service must be strictly, faithfully and fully observed. Failure to comply with this rule renders absolutely void the substituted service along with the proceedings taken thereafter.[24] The underlying principle of this rigid requirement is that the person, to whom the orders, notices or summons are addressed, is made to answer for the consequences of the suit even though notice of such action is made, not upon the party concerned, but upon another whom the law could only presume would notify such party of the pending proceedings.[25]
	GR No. 152776 2003-10-08	HENRY S. OAMINAL v. PABLITO M. CASTILLO PANGANIBAN, J.
Personal service of summons is preferred over substituted service. Resort to the latter is permitted when the summons cannot be promptly served on the defendant in person and after stringent formal and substantive requirements have been complied with.[7]