Aberca Vs Ver

ABERCA vs VER service of pleadings, motions, notices, orders,
GR No. 166216 | March 14, 2012 judgments, and other papers were not strictly followed
THIRD DIVISION, J. Mendoza in declaring Ver et al. in default.
Digest by: Shekinah Mae Fortuna
The RTC’s August 17, 1990 Order was an attempt to
FACTS serve a notice to file answer on Ver etal. by personal
service and/or by mail. These proper and preferred
In an earlier case, Aberca, et al., who were suspected modes of service, however, were never resorted to
subversives, filed a complaint for damages with RTC because the OSG abandoned them when ABERCA
QC against Ver, et al. They alleged that they were failed to comply with the August 17, 1990 RTC order
arrested with a defective warrant and that they were requiring them to report the addresses and
tortured to extort confessions and other information. whereabouts of Ver et al.
VER filed for MTD.
Nevertheless, there was still another less preferred but
RTC granted MTD. ABERCA went to the Supreme proper mode of service available – substituted service
Court on a petition for review on certiorari, seeking to - which is service made by delivering the copy to the
annul and set aside the order of RTC to dismiss the clerk of court, with proof of failure of both personal
case. While case was pending, EDSA Revolution service and service by mail. Unfortunately, this
happened, Ver et al lost their positions and were no substitute mode of service was not resorted to by the
longer in their respective offices as appearing on RTC after it failed to effect personal service and
record. Subsequently, SC annulled RTC decision and service by mail. Instead, the RTC authorized an
remanded the case for further trial. unrecognized mode of service under the Rules, which
was service of notice to file answer by publication.
Fire razed QC City Hall, destroying the records of the
case. ABERCA asked for reconstitution and this was Convincing proof of an impossibility of personal service
granted. or service by mail to Ver et al. should have been
shown first. The RTC, thus, erred when it ruled that
VER was not informed of the remanding and the publication of a notice to file answer to Ver et al.
reconstituting of the case. So RTC ordered ABERCA substantially cured the procedural defect equivalent to
to report the addresses and whereabouts of VER so lack of due process. The RTC cannot just abandon the
they could be notified and subsequently file an Answer. basic requirement of personal service and/or service
However, ABERCA never complied. Instead, ABERCA by mail.
requested to serve the notice to file an answer thru
publication. RTC authorized this. To stress, the only modes of service of pleadings,
motions, notices, orders, judgments and other papers
Still, no answer was filed by VER. So RTC declared allowed by the rules are personal service, service by
them in default. mail and substituted service if either personal service
or service by mail cannot be made, as stated in
ISSUE: Sections 6, 7 and 8 of Rule 13 of the Rules of Court.
Nowhere under this rule is service of notice to file
WON service of notice to file answer by publication answer by publication is mentioned, much less
was proper in this case. recognized.
RULING: NO
The Supreme Court, in this case, adopted and

promulgated the following rules concerning, among
others, the protection and enforcement of constitutional
rights, pleading, practice and procedure in all courts:
RULE 13
o SEC. 5. Modes of service
o SEC. 6. Personal service
o SEC. 7. Service by mail
o SEC. 8. Substituted service
The above rules, thus, prescribe the modes of service

of pleadings, motions, notices, orders, judgments, and
other papers, namely: (1) personal service; (2) service
by mail; and (3) substituted service, in case service
cannot be effected either personally or by mail.
In the case at bench, Ver et al. were completely

deprived of due process when they were declared in
default based on a defective mode of service – service
of notice to file answer by publication. The rules on

Aberca Vs Ver

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aberca Vs Ver

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aberca Vs Ver

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ABERCA vs VER service of pleadings, motions, notices, orders,

The Supreme Court, in this case, adopted and

The above rules, thus, prescribe the modes of service

In the case at bench, Ver et al. were completely

You might also like