Practice question
An authorized server is denied entry by a building guard. The defendant is not seen or spoken to, and the server leaves papers with the guard after only this first visit. The server claims personal service under §5 because the defendant probably lives upstairs. The stipulated facts do not establish the requirements of substituted service. Which is correct?
- The guard's proximity conclusively proves personal service.
- Personal service under §5 is not established; a separate authorized mode must satisfy its own requirements.
- Every guard is legally identical to every resident defendant.
- The defendant's probable residence eliminates all service safeguards.
- The guard's refusal to open the gate is necessarily the defendant's personal refusal in view and presence.
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/am_19-10-20-sc_2019.html — AM19-10-20-SC, 2019 amendments, Rule14 §§1–5,13,20–23.
- https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/11/99055 — AM19-10-20-SC, November26 2024, Rule13-A (express summons exception).
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.