Sansio v.

Mogol (2009, Chico-Nazario)1 Facts: - Sansio (petitioner) filed a complaint for collection of sum of money and damages against the Sps. Mogol (respondents) in the MeTC of Manila. In their complaint, they alleged that the Sps. ordered several aircons and electric fans from Sansio, and for which they failed to fully pay. Aside from this, Sansio also filed a criminal case against the respondents for violation of BP 22. 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 sum of money case to the Sps. Mogol since they were already in the MeTC. When the Sps. saw the summons, they referred it to their counsel, who gave the summons back to the sheriff, saying that service was not effected since said summons was not given to the Sps. Mogol in their home address. Said counsel asserted that summons can only be personally served in the home address of the respondents and since they were in the MeTC, no personal service cannot be effected there. In the sheriffs return, the process server indicated that the Sps. Mogol refused to receive the summons despite personal service to them, thus he concluded that said summons were unserved. Since no Answer was filed by respondents, Sansio filed a Motion to Declare the Sps. Mogol in Default. The same was granted by the MeTC and was affirmed by the RTC. As such, Sansio presented evidence ex parte and eventually they won in the civil case. Upon appeal to the CA, the decision was reversed. The CA ruled that respondents cannot be held to be in default since jurisdiction was not acquired over the person of the respondents since no valid service of summons was made.

Issue: WON there was valid service of summons, hence, the court acquired jurisdiction over the person of defendants. Held and Ratio: - YES. There was valid service of summons through personal service. 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

Angel P.

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. Service of summons to be done personally does not mean that service is possible only at the defendants actual residence. It is enough that the defendant is handed a copy of the summons in person by anyone authorized by law. This is distinct from substituted service under Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. As already discussed above, there was already a valid service of summons in the persons of respondent spouses Mogol in the courtroom of the MeTC of Manila, Branch 24, when their counsel, upon their explicit instructions, received and read the same on their behalf. 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.