Section 7. Substituted service. If, for justifiable causes, the defendant cannot be
served within a reasonable time as provided in the preceding section, service may be
effected (a) by leaving copies of the summons at the defendant's residence with some
person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or (b) by leaving the copies at
defendant's office or regular place of business with some competent person in charge
thereof. (8a)
Section 11. Service upon domestic private juridical entity. When the defendant is a
corporation, partnership or association organized under the laws of the Philippines with a
juridical personality, service may be made on the president, managing partner, general
manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-house counsel. (13a)
Section 20. Voluntary appearance. The defendant's voluntary appearance in the action
shall be equivalent to service of summons. The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other
grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant shall not be
deemed a voluntary appearance. (23a)
2. Rules 15 to 24
3. Cases:
a) Zuniga-Santos v. Santos-Gran et al,
G. R. No. 197380 Oct.8, 2014
Concentrate on the topic of failure to cause an action
Failure to state a cause of action and lack of cause of action are distinct grounds to dismiss
a particularaction. The former refers to the insufficiency of the allegations in the pleading,
while the latter to the insufficiency of the factual basis for the action. Dismissal for failure
to state a cause of action may be raised at the earliest stages of the proceedings through
a motion to dismiss under Rule16 of the Rules of Court, while dismissal for lack of cause of
action may be raised any time after the questions of fact have been resolved on the basis
of stipulations, admissions or evidence presented by the plaintiff.26 In Macaslang v.
Zamora,27 the Court, citing the commentary of Justice Florenz D. Regalado, explained:
Justice Regalado, a recognized commentator on remedial law, has explained the
distinction:
x x x What is contemplated, therefore, is a failure to statea cause of action which is
provided in Sec. 1(g) of Rule 16. This is a matter of insufficiency of the pleading. Sec. 5 of
Rule 10, which was also included as the last mode for raising the issue to the court, refers
to the situation where the evidence does not provea cause of action. This is, therefore, a
matter of insufficiency of evidence. Failure to state a cause of action is different from
failure to prove a cause of action. The remedy in the first is to move for dismissal of the
pleading, whilethe remedy in the second is to demur to the evidence, hence reference to
Sec. 5 of Rule 10 has been eliminated in this section. The procedure would consequently
be to require the pleading to state a cause of action, by timely objection to its deficiency;
or, at the trial, to file a demurrer to evidence, if such motion is warranted.28
In the case at bar, both the RTC and the CA were one in dismissing petitioners Amended
Complaint, but varied on the grounds thereof that is, the RTC held that there was failure
tostate a cause of action while the CA ruled that there was insufficiency of factual basis.
At once, it is apparent that the CA based its dismissal on an incorrect ground. From the
preceding discussion, it is clear that "insufficiency of factual basis" is not a ground for a
motion to dismiss. Rather, it is a ground which becomes available only after the questions
of fact have been resolved on the basis of stipulations, admissions or evidence presented
by the plaintiff. The procedural recourse to raise such ground is a demurrer to evidence
taken only after the plaintiffs presentation of evidence. This parameter is clear under Rule
33 of the Rules of Court: RULE 33
This is in accordance with the doctrine of res judicata which has the following elements:
(1) the former judgment must be final; (2) the court which rendered it had jurisdiction over
the subject matter and the parties; (3) the judgment must be on the merits; and (4) there
must be between the first and the second actions, identity of parties, subject matter and
causes of action. The application of the doctrine of res judicata does not require absolute
identity of parties but merely substantial identity of parties. There is substantial identity of
parties when there is community of interest or privity of interest between a party in the
first and a party in the second case even if the first case did not implead the latter.
(a) That the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the defending party;
(b) That the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim;
(c) That venue is improperly laid;
(d) That the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue;
(e) That there is another action pending between the same parties for the same
cause;
(f) That the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment or by the statute of
limitations;
(g) That the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action;
(h) That the claim or demand set forth in the plaintiff's pleading has been paid,
waived, abandoned, or otherwise extinguished;
(i) That the claim on which the action is founded is enforceable under the provisions
of the statute of frauds; and
(j) That a condition precedent for filing the claim has not been complied with. (1a)