By whom served | Summons (RULE 14) | CIVIL PROCEDURE

Below is a focused and comprehensive discussion on the specific question “By whom is summons served?” under Rule 14 of the Philippine Rules of Court (as amended by the 2019 Proposed Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure). While related doctrines on the manner of service will be touched on where relevant, this write-up zeroes in on the persons authorized to serve summons and the attendant legal implications.

I. Legal Basis

The authority and manner by which summons is served in civil actions are governed by Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. The pertinent provision on who may serve summons can be found in Section 4, Rule 14 of the 2019 Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC, which took effect on May 1, 2020).

Section 4, Rule 14 (2019 Amendments)

“SEC. 4. By whom served. – The summons may be served by the sheriff, other proper court officer, or for justifiable reasons by any suitable person authorized by the court issuing the summons.”

Under the earlier (pre-2019) version of the Rules, the text did not explicitly mention “any suitable person authorized by the court,” although the concept of deputizing a private individual to serve summons existed in practice if the court found good reasons to do so. The 2019 Amendments streamlined and expressly recognized this possibility.

II. Persons Authorized to Serve Summons

  1. Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff

    • The default rule is that the sheriff (or deputy sheriff) of the court that issued the summons performs the service.
    • Sheriffs are officers of the court charged with the specific duty to implement the court’s processes, including summons.

  2. Other Proper Court Officer

    • Apart from sheriffs, the court may direct its process server or any other duly designated court officer to serve the summons.
    • In many courts, there is a designated process server who handles the personal or substituted service of summons as part of their official duties.

  3. Any Suitable Person Authorized by the Court

    • If there are justifiable reasons—for instance, the sheriff’s unavailability, logistical hurdles, distance, or urgency—the court may authorize a private individual (such as a counsel’s liaison officer, a notary public in certain special circumstances, or another person) to serve the summons.
    • The court’s order of authorization should articulate these justifiable reasons. This safeguard ensures that delegation of service to a non-court officer is neither arbitrary nor routinely done.
    • “Suitable person” connotes someone who is legally capable, trustworthy, and competent to carry out the service properly. The court has discretion in determining suitability.

III. Rationale and Policy Considerations

  1. Ensuring Timely Service

    • The main reason for allowing service by persons other than the sheriff is to avoid undue delay. Courts sometimes face backlogs, understaffed sheriffs’ offices, or geographical constraints that hinder prompt service.
    • Authorizing a suitable private individual can expedite the process, in line with the speedy disposition of cases mandated by the Constitution.

  2. Preserving the Integrity of Court Processes

    • While speed is a concern, due process equally demands that the authorized server must faithfully comply with the Rules on service.
    • This is why “suitable person” cannot be loosely interpreted; the person must ensure correctness of service, maintain neutrality, and submit an accurate Return of Summons (see discussion in Section IV).

  3. Balancing Parties’ Rights

    • Proper service is critical because it confers jurisdiction upon the court over the person of the defendant. An invalid service can be a ground for a motion to dismiss. Hence, the law prescribes strict adherence to the Rules to protect the defendant’s due process rights.

IV. The Return of Summons

Regardless of who serves the summons, the rules require that a Return of Summons (commonly referred to simply as a “Return”) be promptly filed with the court. This document must:

  1. Identify the Server

    • The individual who actually served the summons (sheriff, process server, or authorized private person) must be clearly indicated.

  2. Detail the Manner, Place, and Date of Service

    • The return must contain a statement of facts as to how the summons was served—whether it was personally handed to the defendant, served on a competent person of suitable age and discretion at the defendant’s dwelling (substituted service), served on the defendant’s representative, etc.

  3. Be Executed Under Oath

    • The server typically subscribes to the truthfulness of the return under oath to ensure accountability.

  4. Be Filed Within Five (5) Days (or as Soon as Practicable)

    • Under the 2019 Amendments, the return must be filed with the court within five (5) days from the date of service or within the time the court may allow, stating the compliance or inability to serve, with reasons therefor.

The Return provides the basis for the court to determine if jurisdiction over the person of the defendant has been validly acquired.

V. Effects of Improper Service by an Unauthorized Server

  1. Lack of Jurisdiction Over the Person of the Defendant

    • If summons is served by a person without authority (e.g., a private person not duly deputized by the court, or an individual who misrepresents his authority), the service is defective.
    • The defendant can challenge the court’s jurisdiction by filing a motion to dismiss or a special appearance questioning the validity of service.

  2. Opportunity to Cure

    • In certain instances, the court may allow the correction of the flawed service, directing the issuance of alias summons or re-service of summons following the proper procedure.
    • If the defendant, however, voluntarily appears or files a responsive pleading without questioning lack of proper service, that voluntary appearance generally cures the jurisdictional defect (Rule 14, Sec. 20 of the 2019 Amendments).

  3. Administrative Liability for Officers of the Court

    • Sheriffs or court officers who fail to comply with the Rules on service or who file inaccurate returns can be subjected to administrative sanctions (e.g., suspension, dismissal) for neglect of duty or misconduct.

VI. Notable Jurisprudential Points

  1. Strict Compliance Emphasized

    • The Supreme Court has consistently held that summons must be served strictly in accordance with Rule 14. Failure to comply with the rule invalidates service and, in turn, prevents the court from acquiring jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.
    • Examples include cases where summons was served on a person not authorized by the defendant or was served by an individual lacking court authority.

  2. Circumstances Justifying Deputization of Private Persons

    • Courts have recognized scenarios such as urgency, unavailability of the sheriff or the process server, or great distance (e.g., remote localities or the need to serve in a foreign jurisdiction) as sufficient reasons to deputize a private individual to serve summons.

  3. Binding Nature of Official Acts of Court Officers

    • Service by a duly designated or deputized officer generally binds the defendant, assuming the manner of service is correct. The Return of Summons is a prima facie evidence of facts stated therein, but it can be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence.

VII. Practical Tips and Best Practices

  1. Obtain a Court Order When in Doubt

    • If a party or counsel believes that service by the sheriff would be impractical (e.g., the sheriff’s office is overburdened, the defendant is located in a very remote area, or urgent service is required), it is prudent to file a motion in court requesting that a specific private individual be deputized to serve summons.

  2. Ensure Accuracy of the Return

    • Whether you are the sheriff, process server, or authorized private individual, keep detailed records—time, date, place, who received the summons, and the manner of service.
    • Inaccuracies in the return can lead to contested service and delay in the proceedings.

  3. Prompt Filing

    • File the Return within the five-day period (or within the extension granted by the court). Undue delay in filing the return could jeopardize the progress of the case and risk administrative sanctions.

  4. Validate Authority

    • If you are a lawyer or a party receiving summons from an unusual server (someone not obviously connected to the court), it is good practice to verify that the person is indeed authorized by a written court order.

VIII. Summary and Conclusion

  • General Rule: Summons is served by the sheriff or other proper court officer, typically the process server.
  • Exception: For justifiable reasons, the court may deputize any suitable person to serve the summons. This exception accommodates logistical, geographical, or urgent circumstances.
  • Proof of Authority: Where a private individual serves the summons, there must be a court order or an express authorization from the judge.
  • Return of Summons: A timely, complete, and truthful return is essential for establishing the validity of service and the court’s jurisdiction over the defendant.
  • Consequences of Invalid Service: Improper service by an unauthorized person can be challenged for lack of jurisdiction, potentially halting or nullifying the proceedings unless properly cured.

Adherence to Section 4, Rule 14 ensures due process, protects the rights of both plaintiff and defendant, and upholds the efficient administration of justice in civil cases. This provision reflects the Supreme Court’s effort to balance expediency and fairness by expressly allowing courts to deputize a suitable private individual in certain situations, without compromising the stringent standards demanded by due process.

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Lawyer Login

 
 
Privacy Policy         Terms of Use         Lawyer Login