G.R. No. 171916 - CONSTANTINO A. PASCUAL, SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS, REPRESENTED BY ZENAIDA PASCUAL, VS. LOURDES S. PASCUAL.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the original summons and copy of the complaint is hereby returned to the Honorable Court NOT SERVED . Malolos, Bulacan, May 21, 2002. Thereafter, an alias summons was issued by the RTC and, on May 29, 2002, the following report was submitted: The undersigned, on May 29, 2002, made a 3 rd attempt to serve the alias summons issued by the Hon. Court relative with the above-entitled case at the given address of the defendant. The undersigned, accompanied by the barangay officials of the said place, proceeded at defendant's residence but the undersigned was not permitted to go inside her house and was given information by her maid that the defendant was not there. The defendant's car was parked inside her house and inquiries/verification made on her neighbors revealed that the defendant was inside her house at the time of service of said summons and probably did not want to show-up when her maid informed her of undersigned's presence. WHEREFORE, the undersigned court process server respectfully returned the alias summons dated May 29, 2002 issued by the Hon. Court "UNSERVED" for its information and guidance. Malolos, Bulacan, May 30, 2002. [6] Subsequently, on August 14, 2002, the process server returned with the following report, [7] stating that a substituted service was effected: This is to certify that on the 14 th day of August, 2002, I personally went at Dr. Lourdes Pascual's residence at #4 Manikling Street, Talayan Village, Quezon City, to serve the copy of the Summons dated August 12, 2002, together with a copy of the Complaint and its annexes thereto. Defendant Dr. Lourdes Pascual was out during the time of service of the said summons and only her housemaid was present. The undersigned left a copy of the same to the latter who is at the age of reason but refused to sign the same. WHEREFORE, the undersigned respectfully return the service of summons duly served for information and guidance of the Honorable Court. Malolos, Bulacan, August 14, 2002. For failure of the respondent to file a responsive pleading, petitioner, on September 17, 2002, filed a Motion to Declare Defendant in Default [8] to which the petitioner filed an Opposition/Comment to Plaintiff's Motion to Declare Defendant in Default [9] dated October 1, 2002, claiming that she was not able to receive any summons and copy of the complaint. The RTC, in its Order [10] dated October 30, 2002, declared respondent in default and allowed petitioner to file his evidence ex-parte . Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration [11] dated November 18, 2002 seeking to set aside the above-mentioned Order dated October 30, 2002. However, the said motion was denied by the RTC in its Order [12] dated November 27, 2002. Consequently, on December 3, 2002, the RTC, in its Decision, [13] found in favor of the petitioner. The dispositive portion of the said Decision reads: WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Constantino A. Pascu