Sec. 20. Voluntary Appearance. — The defendant's voluntary appearance in the action shall be equivalent to service of summons. The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant shall not be deemed a voluntary appearance. (Rule 14, Rules of Court)
|
|---|
When is jurisdiction over the person of the defendant required?
Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is required only in actions in personam. And this is mandatory.
How is jurisdiction over the person of the defendant acquired?
Jurisdiction over a defendant in a civil case is acquired either through:
When is a person deemed to have made a voluntary appearance?
● As a general proposition, one who seeks an affirmative relief is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. It is by reason of this rule that we have had occasion to declare that the filing of motions to admit answer, for additional time to file answer, for reconsideration of a default judgment, and to lift order of default with motion for reconsideration, is considered voluntary submission to the court’s jurisdiction. (Prudential Bank vs. Magdamit, G.R. No. 183795, November 12, 2014)
● By seeking affirmative relief other than dismissal of the case, respondents manifested their voluntary submission to the courts jurisdiction. It is well-settled that the active participation of a party in the proceedings is tantamount to an invocation of the courts jurisdiction and a willingness to abide by the resolution of the case, and will bar said party from later on impugning the courts jurisdiction. (PCIB vs. Sps. Dy, G.R. No. 171137, June 5, 2009)
● A voluntary appearance is a waiver of the necessity of a formal notice. An appearance in whatever form, without explicitly objecting to the jurisdiction of the court over the person, is a submission to the jurisdiction of the court over the person. (PCIB vs. Sps. Dy)
When is a person not deemed to have made a voluntary appearance?
Voluntary Appearance, however, is tempered by the concept of conditional appearance, such that a party who makes a special appearance to challenge, among others, the court’s jurisdiction over his person cannot be considered to have submitted to its authority.
Prescinding from the foregoing, it is thus clear that:
Problems:
1. B was not summoned. Upon hearing, however, that he was sued, he filed in court a motion for extension of time to file the answer which the court granted. B did not file the answer. The plaintiff now moves that B declared in default. B opposes the motion saying that the court has not acquired jurisdiction over his person because he was not summoned. Is the contention of B correct?
No, because when B filed a motion for extension of time to file the answer, he prayed for a relief and that is the extension of the time. By so filing the motion, he voluntarily recognized the jurisdiction of the court over his person.
2. B, the defendant was not validly summoned. He nevertheless filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the court has not acquired jurisdiction over his person. He prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. The motion was denied. Is B deemed to have voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court by filing this motion to dismiss?
No, because precisely he contested the jurisdiction of the court over his person.
3. Suppose B files a motion to dismiss on several grounds, the foremost of these is that, the court did not acquire jurisdiction over his person because no valid summons was served on him. In addition, he also invoke improper venue and the facts alleged in the complaint do not constitute a cause of action. The motion was denied, is B deemed to have submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court?
No, the inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant shall not be deemed a voluntary appearance. (Sec. 20, Rule 14, Rules of Court)
4. R filed a Motion for Time to file an appropriate responsive pleading. Thereafter, he filed a Motion to Dismiss stating as one (1) of the grounds the lack of personal jurisdiction. Is R deemed to have voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court?
Although the Motion to Dismiss filed by Robinson specifically stated as one (1) of the grounds the lack of personal jurisdiction, it must be noted that he had earlier filed a Motion for Time to file an appropriate responsive pleading even beyond the time provided in the summons by publication. Such motion did not state that it was a conditional appearance entered to question the regularity of the service of summons, but an appearance submitting to the jurisdiction of the court by acknowledging the summons by publication issued by the court and praying for additional time to file a responsive pleading. Consequently, Robinson having acknowledged the summons by publication and also having invoked the jurisdiction of the trial court to secure affirmative relief in his motion for additional time, he effectively submitted voluntarily to the trial courts jurisdiction. He is now estopped from asserting otherwise, even before this Court. (Go vs. Cordero, G.R. No. 164703, May 4, 2010)
4. S was not validly served with summons. However, he filed an Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and to Admit Attached Answer. Did the trial court acquired jurisdiction over S?
Yes. Even assuming that the service of summons was defective, the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the defendant by his own voluntary appearance in the action against him when he filed the Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and to Admit Attached Answer. This was equivalent to service of summons and vested the trial court with jurisdiction over the person of the defendant (Santos v. PNOC Exploration Corporation, 566 SCRA 272, 280).
Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is required only in actions in personam. And this is mandatory.
How is jurisdiction over the person of the defendant acquired?
Jurisdiction over a defendant in a civil case is acquired either through:
- a valid service of summons or
- the defendant's voluntary appearance in court.
When is a person deemed to have made a voluntary appearance?
● As a general proposition, one who seeks an affirmative relief is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. It is by reason of this rule that we have had occasion to declare that the filing of motions to admit answer, for additional time to file answer, for reconsideration of a default judgment, and to lift order of default with motion for reconsideration, is considered voluntary submission to the court’s jurisdiction. (Prudential Bank vs. Magdamit, G.R. No. 183795, November 12, 2014)
● By seeking affirmative relief other than dismissal of the case, respondents manifested their voluntary submission to the courts jurisdiction. It is well-settled that the active participation of a party in the proceedings is tantamount to an invocation of the courts jurisdiction and a willingness to abide by the resolution of the case, and will bar said party from later on impugning the courts jurisdiction. (PCIB vs. Sps. Dy, G.R. No. 171137, June 5, 2009)
● A voluntary appearance is a waiver of the necessity of a formal notice. An appearance in whatever form, without explicitly objecting to the jurisdiction of the court over the person, is a submission to the jurisdiction of the court over the person. (PCIB vs. Sps. Dy)
When is a person not deemed to have made a voluntary appearance?
Voluntary Appearance, however, is tempered by the concept of conditional appearance, such that a party who makes a special appearance to challenge, among others, the court’s jurisdiction over his person cannot be considered to have submitted to its authority.
Prescinding from the foregoing, it is thus clear that:
- Special appearance operates as an exception to the general rule on voluntary appearance;
- Accordingly, objections to the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the defendant must be explicitly made, i.e., set forth in an unequivocal manner; and
- Failure to do so constitutes voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court, especially in instances where a pleading or motion seeking affirmative relief is filed and submitted to the court for resolution.
Problems:
1. B was not summoned. Upon hearing, however, that he was sued, he filed in court a motion for extension of time to file the answer which the court granted. B did not file the answer. The plaintiff now moves that B declared in default. B opposes the motion saying that the court has not acquired jurisdiction over his person because he was not summoned. Is the contention of B correct?
No, because when B filed a motion for extension of time to file the answer, he prayed for a relief and that is the extension of the time. By so filing the motion, he voluntarily recognized the jurisdiction of the court over his person.
2. B, the defendant was not validly summoned. He nevertheless filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the court has not acquired jurisdiction over his person. He prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. The motion was denied. Is B deemed to have voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court by filing this motion to dismiss?
No, because precisely he contested the jurisdiction of the court over his person.
3. Suppose B files a motion to dismiss on several grounds, the foremost of these is that, the court did not acquire jurisdiction over his person because no valid summons was served on him. In addition, he also invoke improper venue and the facts alleged in the complaint do not constitute a cause of action. The motion was denied, is B deemed to have submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court?
No, the inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant shall not be deemed a voluntary appearance. (Sec. 20, Rule 14, Rules of Court)
4. R filed a Motion for Time to file an appropriate responsive pleading. Thereafter, he filed a Motion to Dismiss stating as one (1) of the grounds the lack of personal jurisdiction. Is R deemed to have voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court?
Although the Motion to Dismiss filed by Robinson specifically stated as one (1) of the grounds the lack of personal jurisdiction, it must be noted that he had earlier filed a Motion for Time to file an appropriate responsive pleading even beyond the time provided in the summons by publication. Such motion did not state that it was a conditional appearance entered to question the regularity of the service of summons, but an appearance submitting to the jurisdiction of the court by acknowledging the summons by publication issued by the court and praying for additional time to file a responsive pleading. Consequently, Robinson having acknowledged the summons by publication and also having invoked the jurisdiction of the trial court to secure affirmative relief in his motion for additional time, he effectively submitted voluntarily to the trial courts jurisdiction. He is now estopped from asserting otherwise, even before this Court. (Go vs. Cordero, G.R. No. 164703, May 4, 2010)
4. S was not validly served with summons. However, he filed an Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and to Admit Attached Answer. Did the trial court acquired jurisdiction over S?
Yes. Even assuming that the service of summons was defective, the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the defendant by his own voluntary appearance in the action against him when he filed the Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and to Admit Attached Answer. This was equivalent to service of summons and vested the trial court with jurisdiction over the person of the defendant (Santos v. PNOC Exploration Corporation, 566 SCRA 272, 280).
0 Comments
Post a Comment