Short answer. Yes. Where summons is improperly served on a defendant, and that defendant's own lawyer enters a special appearance specifically to question the validity of that service, Rule 14 lets the court deputize that same counsel to serve the summons properly on his or her own client, rather than making the plaintiff attempt service all over again.

What the law says

Where the summons is improperly served and a lawyer makes a special appearance on behalf of the defendant to, among others, question the validity of service of summons, the counsel shall be deputized by the court to serve summons on his or her client.

Rule 14, Section 13 — Duty of counsel of record. Read the full provision →

The scenario this rule addresses

A defendant who genuinely believes summons was improperly served has a legitimate procedural reason to have a lawyer make a special appearance — an appearance strictly limited to challenging that defective service, rather than a general appearance that would submit the defendant fully to the court's jurisdiction over the entire case. This particular rule kicks in precisely within that narrow setting.

Deputizing the challenging counsel

Rather than leaving the case entirely stalled while the propriety of the earlier service is being contested and litigated, the rule empowers the court to deputize the very lawyer who entered the special appearance to serve summons properly on his or her own client. The same lawyer who came in specifically to question service can, by court deputation, become the actual instrument that accomplishes valid service after all.

Why this closes a procedural loophole

Without a mechanism like this one in place, a defendant could conceivably use repeated special appearances contesting service as a strategy to delay a case almost indefinitely, since a successful defective-service challenge might otherwise simply require the plaintiff to attempt service all over again from scratch, inviting yet another special appearance and another round of delay. Deputizing the challenging counsel to serve summons short-circuits that potential cycle before it can really begin, since the very lawyer who spotted the defect is now also the one tasked with curing it.

What it means for counsel making such an appearance

A lawyer entering a special appearance to contest service of summons should be well aware this rule exists: raising the defect in service does not automatically shield that lawyer from potentially being tasked, by court deputation, with completing valid service themselves on the very client they represent in that proceeding. Counsel should weigh that possibility before deciding how, and how narrowly, to frame the special appearance in the first place. The rule does not excuse the plaintiff from otherwise proper service; it simply changes who physically carries it out once a genuine defect has been raised, so the underlying requirements for valid service of summons still have to be satisfied by the deputized counsel.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.