ISSUE: Robinson vs Miralles

1. W/N the trial court correctly ruled that a substituted service of summons upon GR # 163584 | 510 SCRA 678
petitioner has been validly effected. Petition:PETITION for review on certiorari of the resolutions of the Regional Trial
Court of Parañaque City, Br. 274.
Petitioner: Remelita M. Robinson
- YES Respondents: Celita B. Miralles
• We have ruled that the statutory requirements of substituted service must be
followed strictly, faithfully, and fully and any substituted service other than that DOCTRINE:The statutory requirements of substituted service must be followed strictly,
authorized by the Rules is considered ineffective.[10] However, we frown upon an faithfully, and fully and any substituted service other than that authorized by the Rules
overly strict application of the Rules. It is the spirit, rather than the letter of the is considered ineffective. However, the SC frowns upon an overly strict application of
procedural rules, that governs. the Rules. It is the spirit, rather than the letter of the procedural rules, that governs.
• In his Return, Sheriff Potente declared that he was refused entry by the security
guard in Alabang Hills twice. The latter informed him that petitioner prohibits him FACTS
from allowing anybody to proceed to her residence whenever she is out. - On August 25,2000, Miralles filed with RTC Paranaque City a complaint for sum of
Obviously, it was impossible for the sheriff to effect personal or substituted money against Remelita Robinson. The sheriff went to effect the summons.
service of summons upon petitioner. We note that she failed to controvert the However, the security guard, assigned at the gate of the subdivision where
sheriffs declaration. Nor did she deny having received the summons through the Robinson lived, refuse to let the sheriff go inside the subdivision.
security guard. - The security guard alleged that he was instructed by Robinson not to let anybody
• Considering her strict instruction to the security guard, she must bear its proceed to her house if she is not around. Despite the sheriff's explanation, the
consequences. Thus, we agree with the trial court that summons has been guard still refused admittance. The sheriff returned the second time to serve the
properly served upon petitioner and that it has acquired jurisdiction over
summons. The same thing happened.
- So, the sheriff served the summons by leaving a copy thereof together with the copy of
DISPOSITION the complaint to the security guard by the name of A.H. Geroche, who refused to
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition and we AFFIRM the assailed Orders of the affix his signature on the original copy thereof, so he will be the one to give the same
RTC, Branch 274, Paraaque City, in Civil Case No. 00-0372. Costs against petitioner. to the defendant.
NOTES - Eventually, Robinson was declared in default and judgment was rendered ordering her
- Where the action is in personam and the defendant is in the Philippines, the service of to pay US$20,054.00. A copy of the decision was sent to her by registered mail.
summons may be made through personal or substituted service in the manner - On 2003, she filed a petition for relief from the judgment by default. She claimed that
provided for in Sections 61 and 72, of the Rules of Court. summons was improperly served upon her, thus, the trial court never acquired
jurisdiction over her and that all its proceedings are void.
- Under our procedural rules, personal service is generally preferred over substituted
service, the latter mode of service being a method extraordinary in character.For • She contends that the service of summons upon the subdivision security guard is
substituted service to be justified, the following circumstances must be clearly not in compliance with Section 7, Rule 14 since he is not related to her or staying
at her residence. Moreover, he is not duly authorized to receive summons for the
residents of the village. Hence, the substituted service of summons is not valid
and that the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over her person.
- Trial court denied the petitioner and the subsequent motion for reconsideration.
1SEC. 6. Service in person on defendant. Whenever practicable, the summons shall
be served by handing a copy thereof to the defendant in person, or if he refuses to Hence, the appeal.
receive and sign for it, by tendering it to him.

or (b) by leaving the copies at the defendants office or regular place of business with some competent person in charge thereof. (b) efforts were exerted to locate the party. the defendant cannot be served within a reasonable time as provided in the preceding section. If. for justifiable causes. service may be effected (a) by leaving copies of the summons at the defendants residence with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein. 2SEC. Substituted service. 7.[8] Failure to do so would invalidate all subsequent proceedings on jurisdictional grounds. established: (a) personal service of summons within a reasonable time was impossible. and (c) the summons was served upon a person of sufficient age and discretion residing at the partys residence or upon a competent person in charge of the partys office or place of business. .