JUDGE ALMA CRISPINA B. COLLADO-LACORTE, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 51, CALOOCAN CITY, COMPLAINANT, VS. EDUARDO RABENA, PROCESS SERVER, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, VIG…

Collado-Lacorte versus Rabena

The Case

This is an administrative matter arising from the improper service of summons by a process server. Judge Alma Crispina B. Collado-Lacorte, presiding judge of a Metropolitan Trial Court branch in Caloocan City, brought the matter to the attention of the Office of the Court Administrator after Eduardo Rabena, a process server of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Vigan City, effected substituted service of summons in a civil case raffled to her sala without complying with the requirements of the Rules of Court. The case matters because it fixes the standard of diligence demanded of process servers, whose work is the very means by which a trial court acquires jurisdiction over the person of a defendant.

Procedural History

The matter began as a letter complaint sent to the Office of the Court Administrator by Presiding Judge Francisco A. Ante, Jr. of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Vigan City, reporting the improper service of summons made by Eduardo Rabena, a process server of that court. The complaint was referred to Judge Collado-Lacorte, who issued an order in September 2008 declaring the substituted service improper and directing the issuance of an alias summons. Eduardo Rabena submitted a letter explanation dated February 2009. After evaluation, the Office of the Court Administrator recommended that the case be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter and that Rabena be found guilty of simple neglect of duty and fined. The case was then resolved by the Supreme Court as an administrative matter.

Facts

In a civil case for a sum of money raffled to the branch presided by Judge Collado-Lacorte, summons had to be served on two defendants, Rowell Mark D. Abero and Ernesto R. Rabena. The Officer's Return dated February 2008 showed that summons on both defendants were served by substituted service, upon Elvira Abero and Anita Rabena respectively. The Return did not state the facts and circumstances surrounding the failed personal service, the date and time of the attempts at personal service, the inquiries made to locate the defendants, the names of the occupants of the alleged residence, or any other acts done, though futile, to serve the summons personally.

Judge Collado-Lacorte found the substituted service improper for failure to comply with the Rules of Court and with the ruling in Manotoc versus Court of Appeals, and held that the court had not acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the defendants. She accordingly ordered the issuance of an alias summons.

In his letter explanation, Eduardo Rabena claimed that he was not related to the defendant Ernesto R. Rabena; that after being shown the summons, Ernesto ran away and wantonly refused to receive and sign it; that the other defendant, Rowell Mark D. Abero, could not be located because he had not appeared at his residence for six months; and that when he tendered the summons to Rowell's mother, Elvira Abero, she said her son had told her not to accept any papers, especially from the court, so he did not insist lest he be charged with grave coercion. He maintained that he had performed his duty in good faith.

Issues

• Whether or not the substituted service of summons effected by process server Eduardo Rabena was valid under the Rules of Court.
• Whether or not Eduardo Rabena is administratively liable for neglect of duty, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.

Applicable Provisions

Section 8 of Rule 14 of the old Revised Rules of Court, which the Court held applies to this case, provides:

SEC. 8. Substituted Service. If the defendant cannot be served within a reasonable time as provided in the preceding section [personal service on defendant], service may be effected (a) by leaving copies of the summons at the defendant's residence with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or (b) by leaving the copies at defendant's office or regular place of business with some competent person in charge thereof.

This provision supplies the requirements that the process server failed to meet, namely the impossibility of prompt personal service and a detailed narration of the efforts made in the Return.

Section 23, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations provides:

Under Section 23, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations, (simple) neglect of duty is punishable by suspension of one month and one day to six months for the first offense.

This fixes the penalty for the offense, subject to the alternative of a fine under Section 19 of the same Rule.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the substituted service was invalid. Personal service on the defendant is the preferred mode; substituted service is extraordinary in character and in derogation of the usual method of service, and must faithfully and strictly comply with the prescribed requirements. The Court, drawing on Manotoc versus Court of Appeals, broke the requirements down into two. First, there must be impossibility of prompt personal service, shown by several attempts within a reasonable period, which means at least three tries, preferably on at least two different dates, with the sheriff citing why the efforts failed. Second, the Return must state specific details: the date and time of the attempts, the inquiries made to locate the defendant, the names of the occupants of the residence, and all other acts done, though futile, to serve the summons. Rabena's Return stated only that the summons were received by the defendants' relatives; it narrated none of the required details. The Court quoted the governing principle:

In an action strictly in personam, personal service on the defendant is the preferred mode of service, that is, by handing a copy of the summons to the defendant in person. If defendant, for excusable reasons, cannot be served with the summons within a reasonable period, then substituted service can be resorted to. While substituted service of summons is permitted, "it is extraordinary in character and in derogation of the usual method of service." Hence, it must faithfully and strictly comply with the prescribed requirements and circumstances authorized by the rules. Indeed, "compliance with the rules regarding the service of summons is as much important as the issue of due process of jurisdiction."

On the second issue, the Court held that Rabena was liable for simple neglect of duty, which it defined as the failure of an employee to give proper attention to a required task, a disregard of duty resulting from carelessness or indifference. His claim of good faith did not excuse him, for he proved careless and imprudent in discharging his duties. The Court stressed that it is through the process server that defendants learn of the action against them, and it is through service of summons that the trial court acquires jurisdiction over the defendant. Under the Omnibus Civil Service Rules, simple neglect of duty is punishable by suspension for the first offense, but a fine may be imposed in the alternative, and the Court found a fine of 5,000 pesos just and reasonable.

Doctrine

Substituted service of summons is extraordinary and in derogation of the usual method of service; it must strictly comply with Section 8 of Rule 14, which requires, first, impossibility of prompt personal service, shown by at least three attempts preferably on at least two different dates within a reasonable period, and second, a Return stating in detail the date and time of the attempts, the inquiries made, the names of the occupants of the residence, and all other acts done, though futile, to serve the summons personally. A process server who effects substituted service without these requirements is guilty of simple neglect of duty, punishable by suspension of one month and one day to six months for the first offense, or by a fine in the alternative.

Disposition

Process server Eduardo Rabena was found guilty of simple neglect of duty and fined 5,000 pesos, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with more severely.

Remember This

Memorize the two requirements of valid substituted service: impossibility of prompt personal service shown by at least three attempts, and a Return narrating the specific details of those attempts. Examiners use this case to test the requirements of substituted service under Rule 14 and the administrative liability of process servers for neglect of duty.