Service of summons upon an individual
When a person knows he is being served that notice, he will try as much as possible to evade receipt. Even if he may be around, he will ask someone else to face the court sheriff or process server
Last week, I talked about service of summons upon a juridical entity — a corporation, partnership or association. Like I mentioned then, service of summons is very important and vital in procedural law. It is a mode for the court to acquire jurisdiction over defendant. Without such service, any decision by the court is not binding upon him. In last Monday’s article, I discussed how the amendments of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure rectified the flaws in the service upon juridical persons.
Today, I discuss with you service of summons upon an individual, a natural person. There have been provisions added to the rules that solve the practical problems in serving it. We all know the reality. When a person knows he is being served that notice, he will try as much as possible to evade receipt. Even if he may be around, he will ask someone else to face the court sheriff or process server. That person will tell the court officer that defendant is not around and he is not authorized to receive it on his behalf. This surely frustrates the service and unnecessarily stalls or delays court proceedings.
So, what are the new provisions in the 2019 Amendments to 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure that further make service upon an individual more systematic and fail-safe? As a rule, service of summons upon defendant must be personal. This means the court officer personally hands defendant the summons with the complaint and informs him the purpose of the service. If assuming defendant refuses to accept and sign for it, then service is done “by leaving the summons within the view and in the presence of the defendant” (Section 5, Rule 14). So even if defendant refuses to take it, insofar as the court is concerned, it has acquired jurisdiction over him as service is complete. It is now up to defendant if he risks being declared in default by not filing an answer.
And to be in sync with the times, service via electronic means is now allowed.
Now assuming that service cannot be personally done, substituted service can be made. Resort to such is possible only if the process server has attempted to serve the summons personally upon defendant three times on two separate dates. The court officer can do substituted service by “leaving copies of the summons at the defendant’s residence to a person at least eighteen (18) years of age and of sufficient discretion residing therein” (Section 6a, Rule 14). The age of the recipient has been added. Eighteen is age of emancipation. This presupposes the person already has both discernment and responsibility to handle such notice. If served in defendant’s regular place of business, summons can be left with a competent person. “A competent person includes, but not limited to, one who customarily receives correspondences for the defendant.” (Section 6b, Rule 14). This can possibly be the receptionist or secretary.
Another new provision reads, “[b]y leaving copies of the summons, if refused entry upon making his or her authority and purpose known, with any of the officers of the homeowners’ association or condominium corporation, or its chief security officer in charge of the community or the building where the defendant may be found. (Section 6c. Rule 14). Now if all these fails, assuming none of the methods work, the exercise is still not in futility. The amendments provide one last resort. Service can be done “(b)y sending an electronic mail to the defendant’s electronic mail address, if allowed by the courts.” (Section 6e, Rule 14). Note that this entails asking prior leave from the court before doing so.
All these are a product of experiences from service of summons under the previous rules. Whatever loopholes the old rules had, the new procedure plugged. And to be in sync with the times, service via electronic means is now allowed. With all these processes, it is now quite impossible for defendant to evade service. Even if he asks his household, secretary, receptionist, officers and security personnel of his homeowners’ association to cover for him, the rules now sanction service without need for human interaction — the email. Indeed, technology working for the courts.