[This item has two questions.] Attorney Woo, the newly-hired lawyer of a law firm, booked Samurai Express, a duly accredited courier service within the National Capital Judicial Region, to serve a copy of a motion for reconsideration to Attorney Han, counsel for the adverse party, whose office is in the City of Manila. Attorney Han moved to deny the motion for failure to contain a written explanation as to why the motion was not served personally.
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
Yes, the motion was properly served, and proof of service is an affidavit of service with the courier's official receipt or tracking number.
Under Rule 13, accredited courier service is authorized, and the written explanation for non-personal service was deleted under the 2019 Amendments. Proof of service requires an affidavit of service of the person delivering the paper to the courier, plus the official receipt or document tracking number.
Here, Attorney Woo validly served the motion via Samurai Express, an accredited courier. The lack of a written explanation is immaterial as that rule was repealed. Proof of service is shown by submitting the affidavit of service of the person delivering the motion to Samurai Express, with the receipt or tracking number.
Therefore, Attorney Han's motion to deny must be denied as service was valid and properly proven.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
Is a written explanation required when serving a motion via accredited courier under the 2019 Amendments to Rule 13?
The 2019 Amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure deleted the requirement of a written explanation for non-personal service.
What constitutes proper proof of service when a motion is served through an accredited courier service?
Under Section 17, Rule 13, proof of service by accredited courier requires an affidavit of service and the official receipt or tracking number.
What is the legal effect of serving a motion via an accredited courier without attaching a written explanation?
Serving via accredited courier without a written explanation is valid because the explanation requirement was deleted under the amended rules.
Under Section 3, Rule 13 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which of the following is an authorized mode of service?
Section 3, Rule 13 explicitly recognizes service by accredited courier as an authorized mode of service.
When is service of a pleading by an accredited courier deemed complete under Rule 13?
Under Rule 13, service by accredited courier is complete upon actual delivery to the addressee or upon first attempt to deliver.
Learn more about these topics
1. Accredited Courier
Under Rule 13 of the 2019 Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, service by accredited courier is an officially recognized mode of service and filing. The requirement of incorporating a written explanation for resorting to non-personal service was completely deleted under the 2019 amendments. Consequently, a party may validly serve pleadings or motions through an accredited courier service within the judicial region without needing to explain or justify why personal service was not utilized.
2. Proof of Service
Under Section 17, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, proof of service of a pleading or motion by an accredited courier service is established by two requisite documents. First, an affidavit of service executed by the person who brought the paper to the accredited courier service provider. Second, the official receipt issued by the courier or the official document tracking number. Submitting both the affidavit and the receipt or tracking number provides full legal proof of service.
3. Written Explanation Deletion
Prior to the 2019 Amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure, personal service was the general rule, and any resort to non-personal service required a written explanation attached to the pleading. The 2019 Amendments eliminated this requirement. Under the current rules, failure to include a written explanation for non-personal service no longer invalidates the service nor serves as a valid ground to deny or dismiss a motion or pleading.