Busuego v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioner Bernardo Busuego initiated a case to recover possession of a parcel of land and a three-unit apartment house. He alleged that the respondents had been occupying the premises for over a year without paying rent and had consistently refused to pay or vacate despite repeated demands. 2. Procedural History: The case began in the Pasig Court of First Instance, where summons was issued and allegedly served. After granting two motions for extension to file an answer, the court declared the defendants in default upon the petitioner's motion. A default judgment was subsequently rendered in favor of the petitioner. Approximately two years later, the petitioner filed a motion for execution, which was granted. A motion to hold execution in abeyance was filed by one of the defendants, Romeo Lazaro, for humanitarian reasons and was granted. Later, the defendants, through counsel, filed a motion for reconsideration of the default judgment, claiming they never received a copy. This was denied. Subsequently, new counsel filed an omnibus motion to lift the default order, citing lack of notice. This was also denied. A third motion for reconsideration, arguing lack of jurisdiction due to improper summons service, was also denied. The defendants then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. 3. The Petition: The Court of Appeals granted the petition for certiorari in favor of respondents Romeo Lazaro, Jose Lazaro, and Vivencio Lopez, declaring the default order, judgment, and subsequent writs void for lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition concerning Ernesto Lazaro. The petitioner, Bernardo Busuego, filed this petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to set aside the Court of Appeals' decision. The core issues presented to the Supreme Court are whether valid service of summons was effected upon the respondents and whether their actions constituted a voluntary appearance equivalent to service of summons, thereby conferring jurisdiction upon the lower court.
Issue(s)
Whether there was a valid service of summons upon the persons of respondents Romeo Lazaro, Jose Lazaro, and Vivencio Lopez. Whether there was voluntary appearance by the respondents as defendants below, through Atty. Gerardo B. Roldan and their co-respondent Romeo Lazaro, and whether such appearance constitutes a waiver of any defects in service of summons. Whether the court a quo lawfully acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the respondents Jose Lazaro, Romeo Lazaro, and Vivencio Lazaro, considering their actions and the affidavits disclaiming authority. Whether the argument that appearance after judgment is not a waiver is valid. On the jurisdiction over Ernesto Lazaro.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals insofar as concerns respondents Romeo Lazaro, Jose Lazaro, and Vivencio Lopez, affirming the validity of the proceedings in the trial court. With respect to defendant Ernesto Lazaro, the decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed. The Court also required Atty. Gerardo B. Roldan, Jr. and Atty. Oliver O. Lozano to show cause why they should not be subject to disciplinary action.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of valid service of summons: The Court found that the sheriff's return failed to specify prior efforts to serve summons personally upon respondents Jose Lazaro, Romeo Lazaro, and Vivencio Lopez before resorting to substituted service through Dr. Ernesto Lazaro. This lack of specification is essential for the validity of substituted service, as it is in derogation of the usual method of service. Therefore, the Court upheld the appellate court's finding that there was no valid service of summons effected upon these respondents. On the issue of voluntary appearance and waiver of summons: The Court held that jurisdiction over the person can also be acquired by voluntary appearance and submission to the court's authority, which is equivalent to service of summons. The defendants, through Atty. Roldan, filed two successive motions for extension of time to file an answer. Subsequently, through Romeo Lazaro, they filed a motion to hold execution in abeyance for humanitarian reasons, and later, through Atty. Roldan, a motion for reconsideration of the default judgment and to dissolve the writ of execution, all without contesting the trial court's jurisdiction over their persons. The Court found these acts, individually or collectively, to constitute a waiver of the initial lack of jurisdiction over their persons and a submission to the trial court's authority. The Court gave no credence to the affidavits of some defendants and Atty. Roldan disclaiming authorization for the earlier pleadings. The Court noted that the defendants were family members residing together, making it natural for information about the summons to be shared. The Court also emphasized the presumption of authority of an attorney and the need for finality in judicial proceedings, stating that such late disclaimers were transparently devised to conform to a new legal posture and were insufficient to overcome the presumption of authority and the effect of their voluntary appearance. On the argument that appearance after judgment is not a waiver: The respondents argued that voluntary appearance only applies during trial and not after judgment. The Court rejected this, citing Soriano vs. Palacio, which held that filing a motion for reconsideration and annulment of proceedings after judgment constitutes submission to the court's jurisdiction. The Court found that the various motions filed by the defendants, even after the default judgment, demonstrated their submission to the trial court's authority. On the argument that appearance after judgment is not a waiver: The respondents argued that voluntary appearance only applies during trial and not after judgment. The Court rejected this, citing Soriano vs. Palacio, which held that filing a motion for reconsideration and annulment of proceedings after judgment constitutes submission to the court's jurisdiction. The Court found that the various motions filed by the defendants, even after the default judgment, demonstrated their submission to the trial court's authority. On the jurisdiction over Ernesto Lazaro: The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision dismissing the petition with respect to Ernesto Lazaro, implying that service of summons or his subsequent actions were deemed valid or constituted a waiver of any defect.
Main Doctrine
A voluntary appearance in court, even if made after judgment and without explicitly objecting to the court's jurisdiction over the person, constitutes a waiver of the necessity of formal service of summons and submission to the court's authority.