MACASAET v. CO697 SCRA 197June 5, 2013

Facts: A retired police officer, Francisco Co, assigned at the Western Police District in Manila, sued Abante Tonite claiming damages because of an allegedly libelous article. Sheriff Raul proceeded to the stated address to effect the personal service of the summons on the defendants. The Sheriff failed twice to personally serve the summons on morning and afternoon because the defendants were out of the office and unavailable. The sheriff decided to resort to substituted service of the summons.Petitioners moved for the dismissal of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over their persons because of the invalid and ineffectual substituted service of summons. The petitioners contend that the sheriff had made no prior attempt to serve the summons personally on each of them in accordance with Section 6 and Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. RTC Denied the motion to dismiss and directed the petitioners to file and answer. The CA affirmed the denial of the motion.

Issue: WON The court validly acquired jurisdiction over the petitioners.

Held: Yes, the summons were validly served and the court acquired jurisdiction over the petitioners. The SC, found that the substituted service made by the sheriff was proper for the reason that Sheriff Medina twice attempted to serve the summons upon each of petitioners in person at their office address, the first in the morning of September 18, 2000 and the second in the afternoon of the same date. Each attempt failed because Macasaet and Quijano were "always out and not available" and the other petitioners were "always roving outside and gathering news." The SC also mentioned that It is no longer debatable that the statutory requirements of substituted service must be followed strictly, faithfully and fully, and any substituted service other than that authorized by statute is considered ineffective This is because substituted service, being in derogation of the usual method of service, is extraordinary in character and may be used only as prescribed and in the circumstances authorized by statute. Only when the defendant cannot be served personally within a reasonable time may substituted service be resorted to. In that regard, what was a reasonable time was dependent on the circumstances obtaining.

MACASAET v. CO697 SCRA 197June 5, 2013

Facts: Supra

Issue: WON Jurisdiction over the res is necessary for the court to try and hear the case.

Held: No, Jurisdiction over the res is not necessary. The libel case filed by Francsico Co is a personal action. A proceeding in personam is a proceeding to enforce personal rights and obligations brought against the person and is based on the jurisdiction of the person, although it may involve his right to, or the exercise of ownership of, specific property, or seek to compel him to control or dispose of it in accordance with the mandate of the court. It is only required in an action in rem or quasi in rem enumerated in Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court.