254. Sansio v.

Mogol By Kaira Carlos

 Petitioner stated in the Complaint that respondent spouses Alicia and Leodegario Mogol, Jr. were
the owners and managers of MR Homes Appliances, with residence at 1218 Daisy St., Employee
Village, Lucena City, where summons and other written legal processes of the court may be
served. 
  Petitioner further alleged that respondent spouses Mogol purchased from petitioner air-
conditioning units and fans.
  Respondent spouses Mogol apparently issued postdated checks as payment therefor, but said
checks were dishonored, as the account against which the checks were drawn was closed.
 Respondent spouses Mogol made partial payments, leaving a balance of P87,953.12 unpaid.
Despite several demands by petitioner, respondent spouses Mogol failed to settle their obligation
At the request of herein petitioner, the process server of the MeTC of Manila served the summons and
the copy of the complaint on respondent spouses Mogol at the courtroom of the MeTC of Manila, Branch
24. 
• Respondent spouses were in the said premises, as they were waiting for the scheduled hearing of the
criminal cases filed by petitioner against respondent Alicia Mogol for violations of Batas PambansaBlg.
22. 
• Upon being so informed of the summons and the complaint, respondent spouses Mogol referred the
same to their counsel, who was also present in the courtroom. 
o The counsel of respondent spouses Mogol took hold of the summons and the copy of the complaint and
read the same. 
Thereafter, he pointed out to the process server that the summons and the copy of the complaint should
be served only at the address that was stated in both documents, i.e., at 1218 Daisy St., Employee
Village, Lucena City, and not anywhere else. The counsel of respondent spouses Mogol apparently gave
back the summons and the copy of the complaint to the process server and advised his clients not to
obtain a copy and sign for the same. As the process server could not convince the respondent spouses 
Mogol to sign for the aforementioned documents, he proceeded to leave the premises of the courtroom
• The process server of the MeTC of Manila issued a Return on Service of Summons. Petitioner filed a
Motion to Declare [Respondents] in Default.
• Petitioner averred that the summons and the copy of the complaint were already validly served upon the
respondent spouses Mogol at the courtroom of the MeTC, Branch 24, which they refused to accept for no
valid reason at all. 
• From the date of said service up to the time of the filing of the above-stated motion, respondent spouses
Mogol had yet to file any responsive pleading. Petitioner, thus, prayed that judgment be rendered against
respondent spouses Mogol, and that the relief prayed for in its Complaint be granted, Through a special
appearance of their counsel, respondent spouses Mogol filed an Opposition to the Motion to Declare
[Respondents] in Default. 
• They posited that Section 3, Rule 6 of the Rules of Court requires that the complaint must contain the
names and residences of the plaintiff and defendant. 
• Therefore, the process server should have taken notice of the allegation of the complaint, which referred
to the address of respondent spouses Mogol wherein court processes may be served. 
• If such service, as alleged in the complaint, could not be complied with within a reasonable time, then
and only then may the process server resort to substituted service.
• Respondent spouses Mogol further averred that there was no quarrel as to the requirement that the
respondents must be served summons in person and, if they refused to receive and sign for it, by
tendering it to them.
• They merely reiterated that the service should have been effected at the respondent spouses residential
address, as stated in the summons and the copy of the complaint.
MeTC of Manila, Branch 25 ruled that Section 6, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court does not specify where
service is to be effected. For obvious reasons, because service of summons is made by handing a copy
thereof to the defendant in person, the same may be undertaken wherever the defendant may be found. 
• Although the Return on the Service of Summons indicated that the original and the duplicate copies
thereof were returned UNSERVED, the same could not be taken to mean that respondent spouses Mogol
had not yet been served with summons. 
• That allegation in the return was clearly prompted by the statement in the first paragraph thereof that
respondents spouses Mogol refused to received (sic) [the summons and the copy of the complaint] with
no valid reason at all.
• Respondent spouses Mogol were, thus, validly served with summons and a copy of the complaint. For
failing to file any responsive pleading before the lapse of the reglementary period therefor, the Motion to
Declare [Respondents] in Default filed by petitioner was declared to be meritorious. Respondent spouses
Mogol filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and/or Injunction before the RTC of Manila against Judge
Severino B. de Castro, Jr. of the MeTC of Manila. RTC, held that Section 6, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court
does not mandate that summons be served strictly at the address provided by the plaintiff in the
complaint. Contrarily, said provision states that the service of summons may be made wherever such is
possible and practicable. Therefore, it did not matter much that the summons and the copy of the
complaint in this case were served inside the courtroom of the MeTC of Manila, Branch 24, instead of the
address at 1218 Daisy St., Employee Village, Lucena  City. CA however ruled in favor of respondents, it
said that “A perusal of the said return readily shows that the summons was unserved upon the Mogol
spouses”
Issue: WON the service of summons in the courtroom, before the hearing, a valid service of summons
HELD: YES
It is well-established that summons upon a respondent or a defendant must be served by handing a copy
thereof to him in person or, if he refuses to receive it, by tendering it to him. 
• Personal service of summons most effectively ensures that the notice desired under the constitutional
requirement of due process is accomplished. The essence of personal service is the handing or tendering
of a copy of the summons to the defendant himself, he may be found; that is, wherever he may be,
provided he is in the Philippines. In the instant case, the Court finds that there was already a valid service
of summons in the persons of respondent spouses Mogol. 
• The process server presented the summons and the copy of the complaint to respondent spouses at the
courtroom of the MeTC of Manila, Branch 24. 
• The latter immediately referred the matter to their counsel, who was present with them in the aforesaid
courtroom. 
• At the express direction of his clients, the counsel took the summons and the copy of the complaint,
read the same, and thereby informed himself of the contents of the said documents. 

 Ineluctably, at that point, 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 latters 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.
  That being said, the subsequent act of the counsel of respondent spouses of returning the
summons and the copy of the complaint to the process server was no longer material.
Furthermore, the instruction of the counsel for respondent spouses not to obtain a copy of the summons
and the copy of the complaint, under the lame excuse that the same must be served only in the address
stated therein, was a gross mistake. Section 6, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court does not require that the
service of summons on the defendant in person must be effected only at the latters residence as stated in
the summons. On the contrary, said provision is crystal clear that, whenever practicable, summons shall
be served by handing a copy thereof to the defendant; or if he refuses to receive and sign for it, by
tendering it to him. Nothing more is required.
• As correctly held by the RTC of Manila, Branch 50, the service of the copy of the summons and the
complaint inside the courtroom of the MeTC of Manila, Branch 24 was the most practicable act under the
circumstances, and the process server need not wait for respondent spouses Mogol to reach their given
address, i.e., at 1218 Daisy St., Employee Village, Lucena City, before he could serve on the latter the
summons and the copy of the complaint.
• Due to the distance of the said address, service therein would have been more costly and would have
entailed a longer delay on the part of the process server in effecting the service of the summons.
Axiomatically, Sections 6 and 7 of Rule 14 of the Rules of Court cannot be construed to apply
simultaneously. 
• Said provisions do not provide for alternative modes of service of summons, which can either be
resorted to on the mere basis of convenience to the  parties. 
• Under our procedural rules, service of summons in the persons of the defendants is generally preferred
over substituted service. 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. 
For substituted service to be justified, the following circumstances must be clearly established: 
(a) personal service of summons within a reasonable time was impossible; 
(b) efforts were exerted to locate the party; 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 partiesoffice or place of
business
Contrary to the ruling of the Court of Appeals, the fact that the summons was returned to the process
server and respondent spouses Mogul subsequently declined to sign for them did not mean that the
service of summons in the persons of respondent spouses was a failure, such that a further effort was
required to serve the summons anew. A tender of summons, much less, a substituted service of
summons, need no longer be resorted to in this case.