SERVICE OF SUMMONS UPON RESIDENTS TEMPORARILY OUT OF THE PHILIPPINES
(Rule 14, particularly Section 16 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended by the 2019 Proposed Amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure)

1. Legal Basis and Rationale

Under Philippine procedural law, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court governs the service of summons in civil actions. Summons is the means by which the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, thereby enabling the court to hear and decide a case on the merits.

When a defendant is a Philippine resident but is temporarily out of the country, Section 16 (previously Section 16 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, retained with modifications in the 2019 Amendments) provides a special rule for service of summons. The main objective is to ensure that a temporarily absent defendant, who otherwise maintains residence in the Philippines, can be apprised of legal proceedings against him or her in a fair, timely, and constitutionally valid manner.

2. The Governing Rule: Section 16 of Rule 14

Under the amended Rule 14, the provision on “Residents Temporarily Out of the Philippines” generally states:

“When any action is commenced against a defendant who ordinarily resides within the Philippines, but who is temporarily out of it, service of summons may, by leave of court, be effected out of the Philippines as under the preceding section [on extraterritorial service].”

In simpler terms:

The defendant ordinarily resides in the Philippines.
The defendant, however, is temporarily absent or out of the country at the time of commencement of the action or at the time service of summons is to be made.
The plaintiff must obtain leave of court (i.e., permission from the court) to effect extraterritorial service or other forms of substituted/constructive service.

This special provision closes any loophole by which a resident defendant could evade summons simply by traveling or being abroad temporarily.

3. Distinguishing from Non-Residents and Unknown Residents

Non-Residents (Sec. 17, Rule 14)
When the defendant does not reside and is not found in the Philippines (i.e., a non-resident), and the action is in rem or quasi in rem, extraterritorial service (by publication, etc.) may be availed of under Section 17.
Residents Temporarily Absent (Sec. 16, Rule 14)
The distinction is that the defendant is still a resident of the Philippines; only temporarily out of the country. Hence, service is also permissible under the extraterritorial modes provided one obtains leave of court.
Unknown Residence or Whereabouts
When a defendant’s whereabouts are unknown, courts may allow constructive service by publication under the relevant sections of Rule 14 (in conjunction with the procedure under Rule 14, Sec. 17 [extraterritorial service] or Sec. 16 with leave of court).

4. Modes of Service Allowed for Residents Temporarily Out of the Country

Once the court grants leave under Section 16, the following extraterritorial modes (generally drawn from Section 17 and the corresponding updated sections of Rule 14) become available:

Personal Service Outside the Philippines
- By delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the defendant in person while abroad.
Publication in a Newspaper of General Circulation
- Service can be done by publication, coupled with sending a copy of the summons and the order of the court by registered mail to the last known address of the defendant in the Philippines (or, in some instances, directly to his or her known abroad address if available).
- The period of publication (usually once a week for two consecutive weeks) and the newspaper in which it is published must be explicitly approved by the court in its order granting leave.
Any Other Manner the Court May Deem Sufficient
- The rule also allows “any other manner which the court may deem sufficient,” provided it complies with due process requirements.
- This can include service through electronic means (e-mail, social media accounts, etc.), if justified, especially under the Supreme Court’s more recent issuances allowing electronic service in certain circumstances (though these remain subject to the court’s discretion and specific guidelines).

5. Requirements Before Leave of Court Is Granted

To secure leave of court to effect extraterritorial service or alternative modes of service under Section 16, a plaintiff must generally show:

That the defendant ordinarily resides in the Philippines but is currently abroad.
The circumstances under which the defendant is temporarily outside the country, including last known address.
Efforts or attempts (if any) made to serve the defendant in the Philippines (or to confirm that the defendant is indeed abroad).
The reason that extraterritorial service is warranted (e.g., personal service cannot be accomplished because the defendant is no longer physically present in the Philippines).

The motion for leave of court must be under oath (or supported by affidavit), reciting the facts showing the impossibility of prompt personal or substituted service in the Philippines and the necessity for extraterritorial or constructive modes.

6. Effect of Proper vs. Improper Service

If Properly Effected:
- The court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defendant (since the defendant is a resident, albeit temporarily abroad) once the service is completed in accordance with the court’s order.
- The defendant is bound to answer or otherwise plead within the periods set by law or by court order (with allowances if service is accomplished abroad).
If Improperly Effected or Without Leave of Court:
- The service of summons is void, and the court does not acquire jurisdiction over the defendant’s person.
- Any subsequent judgment or order against the defendant may be null and void for lack of jurisdiction.
Special Appearance to Question Service:
- A defendant who believes that service was improper can file a special appearance (not considered a voluntary appearance) to question the validity of service or the jurisdiction of the court. This must be done without seeking affirmative relief, lest the defendant be deemed to have waived the defect in summons.

7. Due Process Considerations

Constitutional Requirement:
Summons and notice must be such as to reasonably apprise the defendant of the action and give an opportunity to be heard.
Courts take a strict stance on ensuring due process is upheld, which is why service by publication or electronic means always requires prior judicial scrutiny and approval.

8. Timeline and Procedural Nuances

Once the plaintiff files a motion for leave to effect extraterritorial service (or alternative modes of service), the court evaluates the affidavit evidence and the proposed manner of service.
If granted, the court issues an Order specifying how and when service should be effected, including, if applicable, the frequency of publication and the newspaper to be used.
After service is completed, the plaintiff must file a Return of Summons or similar proof of service (e.g., affidavit of publication, proof of mailing, or personal service abroad) within the time designated by the court or the rules.
The defendant’s period to respond (whether 30 days if served by publication or longer if served abroad) starts to run from the completion of the chosen mode of service as fixed by the Rules or by the court’s order.

9. Illustrative Jurisprudence

Several Supreme Court decisions elucidate the principles regarding service of summons on residents temporarily out of the Philippines, underscoring the importance of strict compliance:

Philippine Commercial International Bank v. Spouses Ong (G.R. No. 167182, 2010)
- Reinforced the rule that summons upon a resident temporarily out of the country must be with prior leave of court and in compliance with extraterritorial requirements.
Tagle v. Equitable PCI Bank (G.R. No. 172299, 2007)
- Discussed due process implications when the defendant is not physically present and the necessity of court approval for constructive service.
Gamido v. New Bilibid Prisons Employees Homeowners Association, Inc.
- Although addressing substituted service, it highlights the fundamental requirement of strict compliance with the Rules for the court to acquire jurisdiction.

In essence, jurisprudence shows that courts must jealously guard the rules on service of summons because defects in the mode of service can render subsequent proceedings void.

10. Practical Tips & Final Notes

Obtain Leave of Court Early:
Right after determining that the defendant is out of the country, the plaintiff should file a motion for leave of court under Section 16, explaining the necessity for extraterritorial service.
Be Specific in the Motion and Affidavits:
Provide the court with the exact last known address, the reasons for temporary absence, and the proposed mode of service (personal service abroad, publication, e-mail, etc.).
Coordinate Publication Properly:
If the court orders publication, strictly follow the prescribed time, manner, and newspaper specified. File the Affidavit of Publication or Publisher’s Affidavit to complete the record.
Monitor Defendant’s Response Period:
The countdown for the defendant’s time to file an answer begins after completion of the chosen manner of service, as laid out in the Rules or the court’s order.
Cure Any Defects Promptly:
If a defendant or the court raises any question on the propriety of service, be ready to address or cure it immediately rather than risk dismissal or invalidation of the entire proceeding.

Conclusion

Service of summons upon a resident defendant who is temporarily out of the Philippines is governed primarily by Section 16 of Rule 14, which mandates securing leave of court for extraterritorial or constructive service. This framework ensures due process—the defendant receives proper notice despite being abroad—while preserving the court’s jurisdiction over individuals who maintain Philippine residence.

A meticulous approach—filing a proper motion, adhering to the court’s directives on service by publication or other means, and ensuring strict compliance with the Rules—will safeguard the validity of the proceedings and uphold the defendant’s constitutional right to notice and an opportunity to be heard.