CIVIL PROCEDURE | SANSIO PHILIPPINES, INC., VS. SPOUSES ALICIA AND LEODEGARIO MOGOL, JR., G.R. NO. 177007, 2009

SANSIO PHILIPPINES, INC., VS. SPOUSES ALICIA AND LEODEGARIO MOGOL, JR.,

G.R. NO. 177007, 2009

 

TOPIC/DOCTRINE

Section 5 does not require that the service of summons on the defendant in person must be effected only at the latter’s residence as stated in the summons. In other words, personal service of summons may be made in any place where the defendant may be found.

 

FACTS

Sansio filed a complaint for collection of sums of money and damages and criminal case for violation of BP 22 against the Sps. Mogol in the MeTC of Manila for failure to fully pay several aircons and electric fans. During one of the hearings of the BP 22 case, the process server tried to effect personal service of summons as to the collection of sums of money case to the Sps. Mogol since they were already in the MeTC. Sps. counsel gave the summons back saying that service was not affected since said summons was not given in the respondents’ home address.

 

ISSUE

Whether there was valid service of summons.

 

RULING

Yes.

The court ruled that Section 5 does not require that the service of summons on the defendant in person must be effected only at the latter’s residence as stated in the summons. In other words, personal service of summons may be made in any place where the defendant may be found.

Here, the court ruled that the act of the counsel of respondent spouses Mogol of receiving the summons and the copy of the complaint already constituted receipt on the part of his clients, for the same was done with the latter’s behest and consent. Already accomplished was the operative act of "handing" a copy of the summons to respondent spouses in person. Thus, jurisdiction over the persons of the respondent spouses Mogol was already acquired by the MeTC of Manila, Branch 25.







Popular posts from this blog

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BACLAYON V. MUTIA, 129 SCRA 148

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I CASE DIGEST | THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD V. COMELEC G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTIONS CASE DIGEST/ BPI FAMILY BANK VS. FRANCO/ G. R. NO. 123498/ 23 NOVEMBER 2007

REMEDIAL LAW | Riviera Golf Club v. CCA G.R. No. 173783, June 17 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ MINA VS. PASCUAL/ 25 PHIL. 540 (1923)

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ QUINTOS VS. BECK/ 69 PHIL. 108 (1939)

LAW ON PROPERTY | ACOSTA V. OCHOA, ET AL., G.R. NO. 211559; G.R. NO. 215634, OCTOBER 15, 2019

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION | HYGIENIC PACKAGING CORPORATION VS. NUTRI-ASIA, INC ., G.R. NO. 201302, JANUARY 23, 2019

LEGAL ETHICS | MAURICIO C. ULEP VS. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC Bar Matter No. 553. June 17, 1993

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ DELOS SANTOS VS. JARRA/ G. R. NO. L-4150/ 10 FEBRUARY 1910/ 15 PHIL. 147