Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JOEL R. UMANDAP v. JUDGE JOSE L. SABIO

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 156759 2013-06-05	ALLEN A. MACASAET v. FRANCISCO R. CO BERSAMIN, J.
The significance of the proper service of the summons on the defendant in an action in personam cannot be overemphasized. The service of the summons fulfills two fundamental objectives, namely: (a) to vest in the court jurisdiction over the person of the defendant;and (b) to afford to the defendant the opportunity to be heard on the claim brought against him.[19] As to the former, when jurisdiction in personam is not acquired in a civil action through the proper service of the summons or upon a valid waiver of such proper service, the ensuing trial and judgment are void.[20] If the defendant knowingly does an act inconsistent with the right to object to the lack of personal jurisdiction as to him, like voluntarily appearing in the action, he is deemed to have submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court.[21] As to the latter, the essence of due process lies in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit any evidence the defendant may have in support of his defense.With the proper service of the summons being intended to afford to him the opportunity to be heard on the claim against him, he may also waive the process.[22] In other words, compliance with the rules regarding the service of the summons is as much an issue of due process as it is of jurisdiction.[23]
	GR NO. 163584 2006-12-12	REMELITA M. ROBINSON v. CELITA B. MIRALLES SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
[5] Umandap v. Sabio, Jr., G.R. No. 140244, August 29, 2000, 339 SCRA 243, 247, citing Venturanza v. Court of Appeals, 156 SCRA 305 (1987).
	GR NO. 130974 2006-08-16	MA. IMELDA M. MANOTOC v. CA VELASCO, JR., J.
In the case Umandap v. Sabio, Jr.,[33] it may be true that the Court held that a Sheriff's Return, which states that "despite efforts exerted to serve said process personally upon the defendant on several occasions the same proved futile," conforms to the requirements of valid substituted service. However, in view of the numerous claims of irregularities in substituted service which have spawned the filing of a great number of unnecessary special civil actions of certiorari and appeals to higher courts, resulting in prolonged litigation and wasteful legal expenses, the Court rules in the case at bar that the narration of the efforts made to find the defendant and the fact of failure written in broad and imprecise words will not suffice. The facts and circumstances should be stated with more particularity and detail on the number of attempts made at personal service, dates and times of the attempts, inquiries to locate defendant, names of occupants of the alleged residence, and the reasons for failure should be included in the Return to satisfactorily show the efforts undertaken. That such efforts were made to personally serve summons on defendant, and those resulted in failure, would prove impossibility of prompt personal service.
	GR No. 128053 2004-06-10	SPS. PRUDENCIO ROBLES AND SUSANA DE ROBLES v. CA TINGA, J.
The statements of the Sheriff are entitled to belief unless rebutted by evidence proving otherwise. The presumption of regularity in the performance of duty applies in this case in favor of the Sheriff.[5] Since petitioners have not rebutted such valid presumption, we have no reason to believe that the Sheriff was remiss in his duties.
	GR No. 127692 2004-03-10	FORTUNATO GOMEZ v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT ITS JUDGMENT IS APPLICABLE IN FAVOR OF CARIDAD TROCINO.[10] 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 acquires jurisdiction over his person.[11] Any judgment without such service in the absence of a valid waiver is null and void.[12]
	GR No. 139895 2003-08-15	CIPRIANO M. LAZARO v. RURAL BANK OF FRANCISCO BALAGTAS QUISUMBING, J.
Service of summons upon the defendant is necessary in order that a court could acquire jurisdiction over his person.[16] In this case, despite petitioner's asseverations, we find sufficient basis to conclude that the respective summons in both Civil Case No. 7355-M and Civil Case No. 2856-V-88 were properly served on him.
	GR No. 149380 2002-07-03	FEDERICO S. SANDOVAL II v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL BELLOSILLO, J.
Substituted service derogates the regular method of personal service. It is an extraordinary method since it seeks to bind the respondent or the defendant to the consequences of a suit even though notice of such action is served not upon him but upon another whom the law could only presume would notify him of the pending proceedings. As safeguard measures for this drastic manner of bringing in a person to answer for a claim, it is required that statutory restrictions for substituted service must be strictly, faithfully and fully observed.[24] In our jurisdiction, for service of summons to be valid, it is necessary first to establish the following circumstances, i.e., (a) impossibility of service of summons within a reasonable time, (b) efforts exerted to locate the petitioners and, (c) service upon a person of sufficient age and discretion residing therein or some competent person in charge of his office or regular place of business. It is also essential that the pertinent facts proving these circumstances be stated in the proof of service or officer's return itself and only under exceptional terms may they be proved by evidence aliunde.[25] Failure to comply with this rule renders absolutely void the substituted service along with the proceedings taken thereafter for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant or the respondent.[26]