Practice question
An associated defendant is validly served under Section7 in a common-name suit. Another current associate objects solely that the plaintiff did not first make three personal attempts on that other associate. Which is correct?
- Only service on every witness suffices
- Every Section7 service requires Section6 attempts on every associate
- The common-name route is expressly abolished
- Section7 is its own qualifying common-name service route, not merely Section6 substituted service
- An associate can never receive summons
Legal references
- Current Rule14 Sections6–10 and20–21, AM19-10-20-SC: https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/am_19-10-20-sc_2019.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.