Quiz 8

Mr. A files a complaint against XYZ Corporation. The sheriff attempts to serve the summons at XYZ's principal office, but the security guard refuses to accept it. What should the sheriff do?

Evaluate responses using AI:

OFF

Answer explanation

As per Green Star Express Inc. vs. Nissin Universal Robina Corp., the sheriff should record the refusal and consider it as valid service.

Ms. B, a resident of Manila, is temporarily working in Singapore. Mr. C files a complaint against her. How can Mr. C serve the summons?

Evaluate responses using AI:

OFF

Answer explanation

Mr. C can apply for leave of court to serve the summons extraterritorially, either personally or as the court may direct, as per the rules on extraterritorial service.

DEF Corporation, a foreign company, has a contract with GHI Inc., a Philippine company. A dispute arises, and GHI wants to sue DEF. Can GHI serve the summons in the Philippines?

Evaluate responses using AI:

OFF

Answer explanation

Yes, if DEF Corporation is doing business in the Philippines, service can be made on its resident agent or a government official.

Mr. D files a complaint against a person whose address is unknown. He has exhausted all means to find the defendant. How can he serve the summons?

Evaluate responses using AI:

OFF

Answer explanation

Mr. D can apply for leave of court to serve the summons by publication in a newspaper of general circulation, as provided for when the defendant's identity or whereabouts are unknown.

A sheriff attempts to serve a summons to Mr. E at his residence three times, but no one is present. The sheriff leaves the summons with a neighbor. Is this valid service?

Evaluate responses using AI:

OFF

Answer explanation

This depends on whether the neighbor is a "person of suitable age and discretion residing therein." If the neighbor fits this description, and diligent efforts were made for personal service, it may constitute valid substituted service. If the neighbor does not fit the description, it is invalid service.

FGH Corporation files a motion to dismiss a complaint against it, citing lack of jurisdiction over the person. Does this constitute voluntary appearance?

Evaluate responses using AI:

OFF

Answer explanation

No, filing a motion to dismiss specifically on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person does not constitute voluntary appearance. This is to allow the defendant to question the court's jurisdiction without waiving their objection.

Mr. and Mrs. I are sued as spouses. The sheriff serves the summons only to Mr. I. Is this valid service for both?

Evaluate responses using AI:

OFF

Answer explanation

As per Sps. Madrigal vs. CA, service on one spouse is not necessarily service on the other. The rules regarding spouses as defendants should be carefully observed. Service upon both spouses is required, unless the Court rules otherwise.

Alpha Corp., a domestic corporation, has its principal office under receivership. The receiver, Mr. X, operates from a temporary office. A process server serves the summons at the original principal office, which is now vacant. Is this valid service?

Evaluate responses using AI:

OFF

Answer explanation

No. Service should be made at the receiver's temporary office, as that is now the effective principal office during the receivership.

Mrs. Y, a Filipina, resides in Canada but owns a condominium in Makati. Mr. Z files a case involving the condominium. He serves the summons by registered mail to Mrs. Y's Canadian address. Is this valid?

Evaluate responses using AI:

OFF

Answer explanation

Yes, with leave of court, this would be valid extraterritorial service. The property in Makati provides grounds for the court to exercise jurisdiction.

Beta Inc., a foreign corporation, has a liaison office in Manila but claims it's not "doing business" in the Philippines. A summons is served on the liaison officer. Is this valid?

Evaluate responses using AI:

OFF

Answer explanation

It depends. If the liaison office's activities constitute "doing business," then yes. If not, then no. The court will examine the nature and extent of Beta Inc.'s activities.