G.R. No. 161952; October 2, 2009
Arnel Sagana, Petitioner, vs. Richard A. Francisco, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Arnel Sagana filed a complaint for damages, alleging respondent Richard Francisco shot him. The trial court’s process server initially failed to personally serve summons at respondent’s given address in Quezon City, as the occupant claimed respondent was unknown there. After the case was dismissed for lack of prosecution and subsequently reinstated, another process server attempted service at the same address. He was met by Michael Francisco, respondent’s brother, who informed him that respondent no longer lived there. The server left a copy of the summons with Michael. Based on this substituted service, the trial court declared respondent in default and rendered a judgment in favor of Sagana.
Respondent, through his brother Michael, challenged the substituted service. Michael filed a motion denying he was authorized to receive summons for his brother and asserted that respondent had left the residence in March 1993. In opposition, petitioner presented a notarized affidavit executed by respondent in December 1992, where he declared himself a resident of that same Quezon City address. The trial court upheld the validity of the substituted service. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the service invalid for non-compliance with the rules, as it was not shown respondent still resided at the address or that Michael was of sufficient discretion and authorized to receive it.

ISSUE

Whether the substituted service of summons upon respondent’s brother at the stated address was valid and effective to confer jurisdiction over the respondent.

RULING

Yes, the substituted service was valid. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s decision. The legal logic centers on the factual determination of the defendant’s residence and the propriety of substituted service under Rule 14. The Court emphasized that the rules on summons must be construed liberally to serve the ends of substantial justice when the factual circumstances warrant.
The critical fact was respondent’s own notarized affidavit, executed just months before the alleged shooting incident, wherein he unequivocally declared the Quezon City address as his residence. This contemporaneous document strongly indicated it was his last known address, outweighing the brother’s general claim that he had left. Given the impossibility of personal service after several attempts, leaving the summons with a brother of sufficient age (19 years old) who resided at that address was a reasonable substitute. The brother, by his own admission, remained in communication with the respondent, making it likely he would inform him of the legal action. The Court found the service complied with the rules’ intent to reasonably ensure notice, thereby vesting the trial court with jurisdiction over the respondent.