Practice question
The court is asked to authorize service of Philippine civil summons on a qualifying foreign entity at a known address in a State for which the Hague Service Convention applies. Counsel proposes ignoring the Convention because section 14 lists several modes. Which is correct?
- The list necessarily overrides every international convention
- The court must assess the proposed mode consistently with applicable conventions and the current Philippine Hague guidelines, including the leave-based outbound application
- The Hague guidelines apply only to criminal arrest warrants
- Counsel may always issue a private declaration replacing leave
- The foreign address is irrelevant to selecting any valid overseas procedure
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/am_19-10-20-sc_2019.html — current Rule 14 sections 9, 14, 19 and 21, foreign private entities, leave, convention-consistent service and proof.
- https://oca.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/OCA-Circular-No.-254-2024.pdf — official OCA Circular 254-2024 reproducing AO 101-2024; section 2.1(a), outbound application for Philippine judicial documents by motion with leave in the court of the proceeding.
- https://assets.hcch.net/docs/97b5fe26-8361-467b-8e1e-b778f6d6bdd0.pdf — Supreme Court AO 101-2024, June 25, 2024, Philippine Hague Service Convention guidelines; apply where the Convention governs.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.