MACASAET v.

CO
697 SCRA 197
June 5, 2013

Facts: A retired police officer, Francisco Co, assigned at the Western Police
District in Manila, sued Abante Tonite claiming damages because of an allegedly
libelous article. Sheriff Raul proceeded to the stated address to effect the
personal service of the summons on the defendants. The Sheriff failed twice to
personally serve the summons on morning and afternoon because the
defendants were out of the office and unavailable. The sheriff decided to resort
to substituted service of the summons.Petitioners moved for the dismissal of the
complaint for lack of jurisdiction over their persons because of the invalid and
ineffectual substituted service of summons. The petitioners contend that the
sheriff had made no prior attempt to serve the summons personally on each of
them in accordance with Section 6 and Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court.
RTC Denied the motion to dismiss and directed the petitioners to file and answer.
The CA affirmed the denial of the motion.

Issue: WON The court validly acquired jurisdiction over the petitioners.

Held: Yes, the summons were validly served and the court acquired jurisdiction
over the petitioners. The SC, found that the substituted service made by the
sheriff was proper for the reason that Sheriff Medina twice attempted to serve
the summons upon each of petitioners in person at their office address, the first
in the morning of September 18, 2000 and the second in the afternoon of the
same date. Each attempt failed because Macasaet and Quijano were "always out
and not available" and the other petitioners were "always roving outside and
gathering news." The SC also mentioned that It is no longer debatable that the
statutory requirements of substituted service must be followed strictly, faithfully
and fully, and any substituted service other than that authorized by statute is
considered ineffective This is because substituted service, being in derogation of
the usual method of service, is extraordinary in character and may be used only
as prescribed and in the circumstances authorized by statute. Only when the
defendant cannot be served personally within a reasonable time may substituted service be resorted
to. In that regard, what was a reasonable time was dependent on the circumstances obtaining.

MACASAET v. CO
697 SCRA 197
June 5, 2013

Facts: Supra

Issue: WON Jurisdiction over the res is necessary for the court to try and hear
the case.

Held: No, Jurisdiction over the res is not necessary. The libel case filed by
Francsico Co is a personal action. A proceeding in personam is a proceeding to enforce
personal rights and obligations brought against the person and is based on the jurisdiction of the
person, although it may involve his right to, or the exercise of ownership of, specific property, or seek
to compel him to control or dispose of it in accordance with the mandate of the court. It is only
required in an action in rem or quasi in rem enumerated in Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court.