Filing a Motion for Extension Can Waive Defects in Substituted Service of Summons

G.R. No. 118696, September 03, 1996

Imagine being sued but never properly notified. You find out about the case later and file a motion for more time to respond. Did you just accidentally give the court jurisdiction over you, even if the initial summons was flawed?

This is the core issue in Ramon S. Orosa, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., where the Supreme Court tackled the question of whether filing a motion for additional time to file an answer constitutes a waiver of defects in the service of summons. The case highlights the importance of understanding the rules of civil procedure and the potential consequences of procedural missteps.

Understanding Substituted Service and Jurisdiction

In the Philippines, serving a summons is how a court gets jurisdiction over a defendant. This means the court has the power to make decisions that legally bind that person. The Rules of Court prioritize personal service, meaning handing the summons directly to the defendant. However, if personal service is impossible after reasonable efforts, substituted service is allowed.

Substituted service, according to Section 8, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, can be done by leaving copies of the summons at the defendant’s residence with a person of suitable age and discretion residing there, or at the defendant’s office with a competent person in charge. The key requirement is that the server must first make diligent efforts to find the defendant personally. The return (the server’s report) must detail these efforts.

The importance of proper service is emphasized by the Supreme Court: “Service of summons upon the defendant is the means by which the court may acquire jurisdiction over his person. In the absence of a valid waiver, trial and judgment without such service are null and void.” (Keister vs. Navarro, 77 SCRA 209)

For example, if a process server simply leaves a summons with a security guard without even attempting to locate the defendant within a reasonable time, that’s likely improper substituted service. A judgment based on that defective service could be voided.

The Orosa Case: A Procedural Labyrinth

The case began when Bertan Press and Antonio J. Bertoso sued Ramon S. Orosa and others for a sum of money. The summons was purportedly served on the Orosas through their secretary and on Mendoza through his employee.

Here’s a breakdown of the timeline:

• February 6, 1993: Summons allegedly served via substituted service.
• February 24, 1993: The Orosas file a motion for additional time to file their answer.
• March 5, 1993: Bertan Press files an urgent motion to declare the Orosas in default.
• March 8, 1993: The trial court declares the Orosas in default.
• March 30, 1993: The Orosas file a motion for reconsideration and their answer.

The Orosas argued that the substituted service was invalid because the sheriff’s return didn’t show any effort to serve them personally. The trial court disagreed and denied their motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, leading to the Supreme Court appeal.

The Supreme Court acknowledged the sheriff’s return lacked details on attempts at personal service. However, the Court focused on the fact that the Orosas filed a motion for additional time to answer before questioning the service. The Court stated:

“[T]hey are deemed to have waived any flaw in the court’s jurisdiction arising from a defective service of summons. For, instead of entering a special appearance questioning  the propriety of the service of summons, hence, the exercise of jurisdiction  by the trial court over petitioners, they filed a motion for additional time to file answer on 24 February 1993, which was beyond the reglementary period.  In effect, they voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the court.”

The Court emphasized that by seeking more time to respond, the Orosas effectively acknowledged the court’s authority over them, regardless of the initial service defects.

Practical Implications and Key Lessons

This case offers crucial lessons for anyone facing a lawsuit. If you believe the summons was improperly served, your first step is critical. Filing a motion for extension of time to file an answer, without first questioning the validity of the service, can be interpreted as voluntary submission to the court’s jurisdiction, thus waiving any defects in the service.

Think of it this way: by asking for more time, you’re essentially saying, “I acknowledge this lawsuit and need more time to respond.” This implies you accept the court’s authority to hear the case.

Key Lessons:

• Challenge Improper Service First: If you believe the summons was not properly served, file a motion to quash the summons before taking any other action.
• Special Appearance: Make a “special appearance” in court solely to question jurisdiction. Clearly state that you are not submitting to the court’s jurisdiction for any other purpose.
• Seek Legal Advice Immediately: Don’t delay. Consult with a lawyer as soon as you receive a summons to understand your rights and options.

For instance, suppose a company is served with a summons at an old address. Instead of immediately filing a motion to dismiss based on improper service, they file a motion for extension of time to find legal counsel. Under the Orosa ruling, they may have inadvertently submitted to the court’s jurisdiction.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is a summons?

A: A summons is a document issued by a court that officially notifies a person or entity that they are being sued. It informs them of the lawsuit and requires them to respond within a specified timeframe.

Q: What is the difference between personal service and substituted service?

A: Personal service means handing the summons directly to the defendant. Substituted service is allowed only when personal service is impossible after reasonable efforts. It involves leaving the summons with someone at the defendant’s residence or office.

Q: What is a motion to quash summons?

A: A motion to quash summons is a legal request asking the court to invalidate the service of summons because it was done improperly.

Q: What happens if I ignore a summons?

A: If you ignore a summons, the court may declare you in default, meaning you lose the case automatically. The plaintiff can then obtain a judgment against you.

Q: Can I correct improper service myself?

A: No. Only the process server can correct improper service, and only if it’s done properly and within the allowable timeframe. It’s best to consult with a lawyer to determine the best course of action.

Q: Does filing an Answer automatically mean I waive improper service?

A: Yes, Generally. Filing an Answer to the Complaint without first questioning the service of summons is considered a voluntary submission to the court’s jurisdiction and a waiver of any defect in the service of summons.

ASG Law specializes in civil procedure and litigation. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.