● Section 11, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court provides:

SEC. 11. Service upon domestic private juridical entity. When the defendant is a corporation, partnership or association organized under the laws of the Philippines with a juridical personality, service may be made on the president, managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-house counsel.

Section 11, Rule 14 sets out an exclusive enumeration of the officers who can receive summons on behalf of a corporation. Service of summons to someone other than the corporations president, managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, and in-house counsel, is not valid.

The designation of persons or officers who are authorized to receive summons for a domestic corporation or partnership is limited and more clearly specified in the new rule. The phrase agent, or any of its directors has been conspicuously deleted. Moreover, the argument of substantial compliance is no longer compelling. We have ruled that the new rule, as opposed to Section 13, Rule 14 of the 1964 Rules of Court, is restricted, limited and exclusive, following the rule in statutory construction that expressio unios est exclusio alterius. Had the Rules of Court Revision Committee intended to liberalize the rule on service of summons, it could have done so in clear and concise language. Absent a manifest intent to liberalize the rule, strict compliance with Section 11, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is required. (Paramount Insurance vs. Ordoez, G.R. No. 175109, August 6, 2008) 


● It is settled that jurisdiction over a defendant in a civil case is acquired either through service of summons or through voluntary appearance in court and submission to its authority. In the absence of service or when the service of summons upon the person of the defendant is defective, the court acquires no jurisdiction over his person, and a judgment rendered against him is null and void.

In actions in personam, such as collection for a sum of money and damages, the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defendant through personal or substituted service of summons.

Personal service is effected by handling a copy of the summons to the defendant in person, or, if he refuses to receive and sign for it, by tendering it to him. If the defendant is a domestic private juridical entity, service may be made on its president, managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-house counsel. It has been held that this enumeration is exclusive. Service on a domestic private juridical entity must, therefore, be made only on the person expressly listed in Section 11, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. If the service of summons is made upon persons other than those officers enumerated in Section 11, the same is invalid.

There is no dispute that respondent Expressions is a domestic corporation duly existing under the laws of the Republic of the Philippines, and that respondent Bon Huan is its president. Thus, for the trial court to acquire jurisdiction, service of summons to it must be made to its president, Bon Huan, or to its managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-house counsel. It is further undisputed that the questioned second service of summons was made upon Ochotorina, who was merely one of the secretaries of Bon Huan, and clearly, not among those officers enumerated under Section 11 of Rule 14. The service of summons upon Ochotorina is thus void and, therefore, does not vest upon the trial court jurisdiction over Expressions.

Even assuming arguendo that the second service of summons may be treated as a substituted service upon Bon Huan as the president of Expressions, the same did not have the effect of giving the trial court jurisdiction over the respondents.

It is settled that resort to substituted service is allowed only if, for justifiable causes, the defendant cannot be personally served with summons within a reasonable time. In such cases, substituted 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 a competent person in charge. Because substituted service is in derogation of the usual method of service, and personal service of summons is preferred over substituted service, parties do not have unbridled right to resort to substituted service of summons.

In Manotoc v. Court of Appeals, the Court held that before a sheriff may resort to substituted service, he must first establish the impossibility of prompt personal service. To establish such impossibility, there must be at least three (3) attempts, preferably on at least two different dates, to personally serve the summons within a reasonable period of one (1) month or eventually result in failure. The sheriff must further cite why such efforts are unsuccessful.

In this case, the impossibility of prompt personal service was not shown. The 15 May 2009 sheriff's return reveals that Sheriff Muriel attempted to serve the second summons personally only once on 11 May 2009. Clearly, the efforts exerted by Sheriff Muriel were insufficient to establish that it was impossible to personally serve the summons promptly. Further, Sheriff Muriel failed to cite reasons why personal service proved ineffectual. He merely stated that Ochotorina told him that Bon Huan was then attending to business matters, and that he was assured that the summons would be brought to the attention of Bon Huan.

Sheriffs are asked to discharge their duties on the service of summons with due care, utmost diligence, and reasonable promptness and speed so as not to prejudice the expeditious dispensation of justice. They are enjoined to make their best efforts to accomplish personal service on defendant.28 Sheriff Muriel clearly failed to meet this requirement. (Interlink Movies vs. CA, G.R. No. 203298, January 17, 2018) 


● True, when the defendant is a domestic corporation, service of summons may be made only upon the persons enumerated in Section 11, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. However, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant can be acquired not only by proper service of summons but also by defendants voluntary appearance without expressly objecting to the courts jurisdiction, as embodied in Section 20, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. (Atiko Trans, Inc. and Cheng Lie Navigation Co., Ltd vs. Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc., G.R. No. 167545, August 17, 2011)