Valid Service of Summons: Refusal to Sign Does Not Defeat Jurisdiction

In Sansio Philippines, Inc. v. Spouses Mogol (G.R. No. 177007, July 14, 2009), the Supreme Court clarified a recurring question in civil procedure: what happens when a defendant refuses to sign for summons? The Court ruled that handing summons to a defendant's counsel, who reads it at the defendant's instruction, constitutes valid personal service—even if the counsel later returns the documents and the defendant refuses to acknowledge receipt.

The Facts

Sansio Philippines, Inc. filed a complaint for sum of money against spouses Alicia and Leodegario Mogol, Jr. before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila. The process server attempted to serve summons on the spouses at the MeTC courtroom, where they were waiting for a hearing in related criminal cases.

When the spouses were informed of the summons and complaint, they referred the matter to their counsel, who was also present. The counsel took the documents, read them, but then returned them to the process server. He advised his clients not to accept or sign for the documents, insisting that service should have been made at their stated residence in Lucena City.

The process server returned the summons marked "UNSERVED," stating that the spouses "refused to receive [the summons] with no valid reason at all." Sansio then moved to declare the spouses in default for failing to file a responsive pleading. The MeTC granted the motion, but the Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that there was no valid service of summons. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals.

The Issue

The central issue was whether the service of summons inside the courtroom—where the defendants' counsel received and read the documents but the defendants refused to sign—constituted valid personal service under the Rules of Court.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court held that the service was valid. The governing rule on personal service of summons provides that, whenever practicable, summons shall be served by handing a copy thereof to the defendant in person, or, if the defendant refuses to receive and sign for it, by tendering it to him. The rule does not require service to be made only at the address stated in the complaint.

The Court emphasized that the essence of personal service is handing or tendering a copy of the summons to the defendant himself, wherever he may be found in the Philippines. When the spouses' counsel took and read the summons and complaint at their explicit instruction, that act constituted receipt on their part. The subsequent return of the documents and refusal to sign were immaterial.

The Court also rejected the argument that substituted service should have been resorted to. Personal service is preferred over substituted service, which is an extraordinary method that derogates the regular method. Substituted service applies only when personal service within a reasonable time is impossible—a situation that did not exist here.

Finally, the Court addressed the process server's return stating "UNSERVED." While the process server's certificate is prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein, the first paragraph of the return clearly narrated that the summons was presented to the spouses, who refused to receive it. The statement "UNSERVED" was a mere conclusion of law that did not bind the courts' independent judgment.

Practical Takeaways

• Personal service is not location-bound. Summons may be served on a defendant wherever they may be found in the Philippines, not only at the address stated in the complaint.
• A defendant's refusal to sign does not defeat service. If a copy of the summons is handed to or tendered upon the defendant, service is complete even if the defendant refuses to acknowledge receipt.
• Receipt by counsel can constitute receipt by the client. When a defendant instructs counsel to receive and read summons, the counsel's act constitutes valid service on the defendant.
• Substituted service is a fallback, not an alternative. It applies only when personal service is impossible within a reasonable time, not merely because it is more convenient.
• A process server's return is not conclusive. Courts may look beyond a conclusory statement that summons was "unserved" and examine the actual facts narrated in the return.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.