"THE SUMMONS NOTIFIES THE DEFENDANT THAT HE OR

SHE HAS BEEN SUED."

 
Summons is a mandate requiring the appearance of the defendant in the action in court under
the penalty of having judgment entered (against him or her) for failure to do so. The object of the
summons is to notify the defendant that he or she has been sued (Barron’s Law Dictionary).
The summons is issued by the court in a civil case to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant or the person being sued. This allows the defendant to participate in the court
proceedings, and be subject to its processes and judgments. Essentially, it satisfies the
requirement of due process.

For the plaintiff, the issuance of summons means that he has paid the legal fees, the case has a
docket number, and the court has not dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction over the action,
litis pendentia (two pending cases involving the same parties, issues and reliefs), res judicata
(previous judgment), or statute of limitations under Rule 9, Section 1 of the Amended Rules of
Civil Procedure (ARCP).

For the defendant, the receipt of the summons means that from that point, the time for him to file
an answer is starting to run out. Under the ARCP, the period to file an Answer is 30 days. The
defendant may also opt to file a Motion to Dismiss on grounds enumerated in Rule 15, Section
12 of the ARCP. If he fails to file an Answer, he can be declared in default (Section 3, Rule 9,
ARCP).
However, the service of summons on the defendant is not as simple as it may appear. If the
defendant is a natural person or an individual, the summons must be personally handed to him
by the sheriff, deputy sheriff or process server unless the plaintiff has been authorized by the
court to serve summons to the defendant (Section 3, Rule 14, ARCP).

The court may authorize the plaintiff to serve summons together with the sheriff if there was
failure of service. If the summons is returned without being served to any and all the defendants,
the court shall order the plaintiff to serve summons. Failure to comply with the order shall cause
the dismissal of the complaint without prejudice which means that the case can be refiled again
(Section 3, Rule 14, ARCP).

If the defendant refuses to receive the summons when handed to him by the sheriff, the sheriff
may “tender the summons” by leaving the summons “within the view and in the presence of the
defendant” (Section 5, Rule 14, ARCP). Hence, the sheriff cannot: (a) throw the summons
towards the direction of the house; (b) leave it in the mailbox outside of the house; or (c) place it
on a car windshield believing that it is the car of the defendant.

The primary duty of the sheriff is to serve the summons to the defendant in person. Only if the
summons cannot be served personally after at least three attempts on two separate dates can
the summons be served to persons other than the defendant. Service of the summons to
persons other than the defendant is known as substituted service. The substituted service is
only utilized if there is impossibility of personal service (Section 6, Rule 14, ARCP; People’s
General Insurance Corp. v. Guansing, G.R. No. 204759, November 14, 2018).

The substituted service or service to persons other than the defendant can be made to: (a) a
person at least 18 years of age and of sufficient discretion residing at the defendant’s residence;
or (b) a competent person in charge of the defendant’s office which includes one who
customarily receives correspondences for the defendant (Section 6, Rule 14, ARCP).
If refused entry after making his authority or purpose known, the sheriff can leave the summons
to the officers of the homeowners’ association or condominium corporation or to its chief
security officer in charge of the community or building where the defendant may be found
(Section 6, Rule 14, ARCP). This mode of service may be availed of only if there is refusal of
entry and there were at least three attempts on two separate dates.

Service of summons to a defendant by electronic means is now allowed subject to approval of

the court and after several attempts to serve summons were unsuccessful. Prior to the 2020
amendment, the service of summons by electronic means is permitted only to defendant foreign
juridical entities which are not registered in the Philippines (Section 14, Rule 14, ARCP).
There are also times that the defendant individual is not found and does not reside in the
Philippines because he has migrated to a foreign country, or resides in another country by
reason of permanent employment or marriage. In these instances, the service of summons can
be made extraterritorially.

The kinds of actions that may be the subject of extraterritorial service of summons are those
which involve the personal status of the plaintiff, or the property of a non-resident defendant in
the Philippines (Section 17, Rule 14, ARCP). Examples are nullity or annulment of marriage,
recovery of a title over a piece of land, or actions against parties or those involving properties
where a writ of attachment has been issued.

The extraterritorial service of summons to a defendant individual may, by leave of court, be

effected (a) out of the Philippines by personal service; (b) through international conventions to
which the Philippines is a party; or (c) by publication in a newspaper of general circulation with a
copy of the summons and order of the court sent by registered mail to the last known address of
the defendant, or (d) by any other manner the court may deem sufficient (Section 17, Rule 14,
ARCP).

There are also individual defendants who remain to be residents of the Philippines but are
temporarily out or absent, such as overseas Filipino workers, those living with relatives abroad
for a couple of months, or those studying abroad. The service of summons may, by leave of
court, be effected in the same manner as those defendants who do not reside or are not found
in the Philippines (Section 18, Rule 14, ARCP). However, jurisprudence has allowed service to
those defendants that are temporarily out of the Philippines by substituted service (Montefalcon
v. Vazquez, G.R. No. 165016, June 17, 2008).

If the defendant is a company, partnership or association formed or organized in the Philippines,

service of summons may be made on the president, managing partner, general manager,
corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-house counsel of the corporation wherever they may be
found, or in their absence or unavailability, on their secretaries (Section 12, Rule 14, ARCP).

Hence, summons may be served to those officers personally in their homes, offices, or places
where they frequently hang around or are chanced upon However, in their absence or
unavailability it may be served to their secretaries. This provision is a relaxation of the old strict
rule that requires service of summons be made only to the officers mentioned in the Rules.
If service of summons to those persons is unsuccessful, it shall be made upon the person who
customarily receives the correspondence for the defendant company, partnership or association
at its principal office (Section 12, Rule 14, ARCP), such as its mailing department. Should there
be a refusal on the part of the officers of the juridical entities to receive summons for at least
three (3) attempts on two (2) different dates, service may be made electronically, if permitted by
the court (Section 12, Rule 14, ARCP).

There is a different Rule on service of summons, however, when the defendant is a foreign
private juridical entity. If it has transacted or is doing business in the Philippines, service of
summons may be made on its resident agent. If there is no such agent, service shall be on the
government official designated by law to receive it, or on any of its officers, agents, directors or
trustees within the Philippines (Section 14, Rule 14, ARCP).

The purpose of the issuance and service of summons is to cause the defendant to submit to the
powers of the court. Instead of losing sleep and being anxious, the defendant should take it as
an opportunity to explain his side of the story. The defendant should have faith in the capacity of
the judicial system to dispense justice because it is one of the pillars of a free and democratic
nation.