Online Filing and Service of Pleadings

With the pervasive influence of the Internet in society, it is not striking that service of process and the filing of pleadings through e-mail have already been resorted to. For instance, service of process via Facebook, an online social network, has been held valid in Australia. Scott Harrell, in a December 2008 article wrote that “Australian attorneys can now serve enforceable court documents by posting them on a defendant’s Facebook profile. An Australian Supreme Court judge ruled that lawyers could use the social networking site to serve court notices.” In the U.S., the case of Williams-Sonoma Inc. v. Friendfinder Inc., (N.D.Cal. April 17, 2007), service of process by e-mail was allowed for foreign defendants. Also, in a January 2009 article by Stephanie Mitchell, “several Virginia attorneys are now hoping they will be able to convince a Federal District Court Judge to approve a motion to serve a summons via e-mail.”


With this rule of procedure gaining acceptance in the legal system, of utmost concern is the issue of actual notice or receipt of the e-mail to satisfy the requisites of due process. How and when do we know “whether the message is actually received by the person for whom it is intended?”


In the U.S., several states allow electronic filing and serving of pleadings and process in their Rules of Procedure. Some rules provide for proof of delivery, or proof of service. While such rules may not squarely resolve the issue of actual receipt by the person to whom such process or paper is intended, at least these rules provide a mechanism by which sufficient service or filing has been made, such that the standards of due process are met.


In our jurisdiction, upholding the validity of filing or service of pleadings, summons, process or other papers in our jurisdiction is almost a non-issue. We are a civil law country and our rules are pretty straightforward regarding the manner of filing and service of pleadings, process and other papers. Since our rules do not provide for such rule of procedure, then there is no basis to rule as valid the filing or service of pleadings, process and other papers through e-mail. It may be worthwhile, though, to look at Rule 14.15 on extraterritorial service of summons, where there is a colatilla that says “or in any manner the court may deem sufficient.” This may be a basis for testing the validity of service of summons through e-mail, its validity depending on the factual circumstances of the case. This has limited application, though, as it only covers extraterritorial service of summons.


However, with the continuous growth, use and influence of the Internet in our society, incorporating the manner of filing and service of pleadings, and other papers and the service of summons in our rules of procedure is greatly possible, if not, inevitable. In OCA Circular 12-2007, which required all the Justices and Judges of the Judiciary to submit their respective email addresses, our Supreme Court expressed its policy of total computerization of the Judiciary, in its plan to improve and upgrade judicial facilities as part of judicial reform. The policy enunciated in the circular is in line with the filing and service of process and other papers through e-mail. Certainly, therefore, rules on online filing and service of pleadings and processes may soon be codified in our remedial laws.

Balisi, Reody Anthony M.
2nd Entry

Sources:
http://pursuitmag.com/2008/12/service-of-process-via-facebook/
http://blog.internetcases.com/category/service-of-process/
http://pursuitmag.com/2009/01/service-of-process-via-email/