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.