Home 
PART 1
JUDGE ALMA CRISPINA B. COLLADO-LACORTE, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 51, Caloocan City,
Complainant,
- versus -
EDUARDO RABENA, Process Server, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Vigan City,
Respondent.
Statement of the Case:
A.M. No. P-09-2665
Promulgated: August 4, 2009
The instant case arose from a letter27[1] complaint sent to the Office of the Court Administrator dated 13 February 2008 by Presiding Judge Francisco A. Ante, Jr., Municipal Trial Court in Cities, First Judicial Region, Vigan City, on the improper service of summons made by Ernesto R. Rabena, Process Server of the said court, relative to Civil Case No. 07-29131, entitled Moneyline Lending Investors Inc., v. Rowell Mark D. Abero & Ernesto R. Rabena, which was raffled off to Branch 51, Metropolitan Trial Court of Caloocan City, presided by Judge Alma Crispina B. Collado-Lacorte.
Ruling:
In the 16 September 2008 Order, the Return of Service of Summons of Process Server Eduardo R. Rabena states:
The undersigned respectfully returned to the Hon. Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, First Judicial Region, Branch 51, Caloocan City the herein summons on the person of MR. ERNESTO RABENA was duly notified and received by his sister Anita Rabena, as evidenced by her signature appearing on the face of the herein summons.
The undersigned respectfully returned to the Hon. Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 51, Caloocan City the herein summons on the person of ROWELL MARK D. ABERO was duly notified and received by his mother Mrs. Elvira Abero, as evidenced by her signature appearing on the face of the herein summons.
It is clear that Eduardo R. Rabena failed to fulfill his duty with utmost diligence as a process server. As emphasized in Ma. Imelda M. Manotoc v. Hon. Court of Appeals,28[3] which is also applicable to process servers:
In an action strictly in personam, personal service on the defendant is the preferred mode of service, that is, by handing a copy of the summons to the defendant in person. If defendant, for excusable reasons, cannot be served with the summons within a reasonable period, then substituted service can be resorted to. While substituted service of summons is permitted, ?it is extraordinary in character and in derogation of the usual method of service.? Hence, it must faithfully and strictly comply with the prescribed requirements and circumstances authorized by the rules. Indeed, ?compliance with the rules regarding the service of summons is as much important as the issue of due process of jurisdiction.
Requirements for Substituted Service
Section 8 of Rule 14 of the old Revised Rules of Court which applies to this case provides:
SEC. 8. Substituted Service. If the defendant cannot be served within a reasonable time as provided in the preceding section [personal service on defendant], 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 some competent person in charge thereof.
(To be continued)
