Can summons be served by mail?
Can service of summons be made by mail? It cannot be served by mail but it can be done as a complementary to service of summons by publication, but it does not mean that service by registered mail alone would suffice. (Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, Vol. I, p. 242, 2005 ed)
At first blush, it would appear that the recourse pursued by petitioners could elicit a favorable response from the Supreme Court in as much as the proof of service of the summons upon petitioners does not indicate impossibility of personal service, a condition precedent for resorting to substituted service. Even then, and assuming in gratia argumenti that the statutory norms on service of summons have not been strictly complied with, still, any defect in form and in the manner of effecting service thereof were nonetheless erased when petitioners' counsel moved to re-examine the impugned decision and posed a subsequent bid on appeal to impede immediate execution. (Boticano vs. Chu. Jr., 145 SCRA 541 [1987]); 1 Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, 1988 Fifth Rev. Ed., p. 136)
Indeed, such demeanor is tantamount to voluntary submission to the competencia of the court within the purview of Section 23, Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Court since any mode of appearance in court by a defendant or his lawyer is equivalent to service of summons, absent any indication that the appearance of counsel for petitioner was precisely to protest the jurisdiction of the court over the person of defendant. (Carballo vs. Encarnacion, 49 O.G. 1383; 1 Regalado, supra, p. 144; Flores vs. Zurbito, 37 Phil. 746 [1918]; 1 Martin, Rules of Court in the Philippines, 1989 Rev. Ed., p. 473 Sison, et al. vs. Gonzales, 50 O.G. 4756; 1 Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, 1970 Ed., p. 467)
Indeed, such demeanor is tantamount to voluntary submission to the competencia of the court within the purview of Section 23, Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Court since any mode of appearance in court by a defendant or his lawyer is equivalent to service of summons, absent any indication that the appearance of counsel for petitioner was precisely to protest the jurisdiction of the court over the person of defendant. (Carballo vs. Encarnacion, 49 O.G. 1383; 1 Regalado, supra, p. 144; Flores vs. Zurbito, 37 Phil. 746 [1918]; 1 Martin, Rules of Court in the Philippines, 1989 Rev. Ed., p. 473 Sison, et al. vs. Gonzales, 50 O.G. 4756; 1 Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, 1970 Ed., p. 467)
Neither can the motion for reconsideration directed against the unfavorable disposition be treated as a special appearance founded on the sole challenge on invalid service of summons since the application therefor raised another ground on failure to state a cause of action when conciliation proceedings at the barangay level were allegedly bypassed, nay, disregarded. (Republic vs. Ker and Co., Ltd., 64 O.G. 3761; Regalado, supra, p. 152)
