Paramount Insurance v. Luna
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Dr. Doroteo Espiritu filed a complaint for damages against Romeo Hechanova (principal) and Paramount Insurance Corporation (surety) for breach of an undertaking under a Construction Agreement, evidenced by a Performance Bond issued by Paramount. Hechanova was declared in default. Paramount's counsel repeatedly failed to appear at scheduled hearings, leading to the plaintiff being allowed to present evidence ex-parte and the waiver of Paramount's right to cross-examine. Procedural History: The trial court rendered a decision in favor of Dr. Espiritu, ordering Hechanova and Paramount to pay damages, attorney's fees, and costs. No appeal was filed, and the decision became final and executory. Subsequently, a fire gutted the City Hall, destroying the records of the case. The plaintiff filed a motion for reconstitution, which was granted, along with a motion for execution. The Petition: Paramount Insurance Corporation filed a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction and prohibition, assailing the decision and the writ of execution. They argued that the court did not acquire jurisdiction over their person due to lack of proper service of summons. A subsequent petition for relief from the decision was dismissed for insufficiency in form and substance. This Court is asked to determine the validity of the assailed decision and writ of execution.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner. Whether the decision rendered by the respondent court is void for lack of jurisdiction. Whether certiorari is the proper remedy to assail a final and executory judgment.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The decision and writ of execution are upheld. The respondent court acquired jurisdiction over the petitioner, and its judgment is valid.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the respondent court acquired jurisdiction over the petitioner: The Court held that jurisdiction over the person of a defendant is acquired either by voluntary appearance or by service of summons. In this case, petitioner Paramount Insurance Corporation was validly served with summons and a copy of the complaint. Furthermore, petitioner filed an Answer with Cross-claim through its counsel, Atty. Reynaldo Pineda, which constitutes a voluntary appearance and cures any defect in the summons. The Court also noted that petitioner's assertion that Atty. Pineda was unauthorized is untenable, as the filing of the answer raised a presumption of authority, which was not rebutted by clear and positive proof. The Court cited the case of Tan Lua vs. O' Brien to support the principle that authority to employ an attorney may be inferred from circumstantial evidence and that an attorney appearing in court is prima facie presumed to have sufficient authority. Petitioner's continued awareness of the case, as evidenced by its receipt of the formal offer of evidence and failure to repudiate Atty. Pineda's representation, further strengthened the presumption of authority. On Whether the decision rendered by the respondent court is void for lack of jurisdiction: Since the Court found that it acquired jurisdiction over the petitioner, the decision rendered by the respondent court is not void. The Court reiterated that if the court has jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the person, its orders and rulings upon all questions pertaining to the cause are within its jurisdiction and cannot be corrected by certiorari. The subsequent fire and reconstitution of records did not divest the court of its jurisdiction or render the original judgment void. On Whether certiorari is the proper remedy to assail a final and executory judgment: The Court clarified that certiorari is a proper recourse against a void judgment. However, since the judgment in Civil Case No. 122209 was found to be valid and not void for lack of jurisdiction, certiorari is not the appropriate remedy to annul it. The petitioner's recourse should have been an appeal within the reglementary period. Moreover, the Court noted that even if the case were reopened, the petition fails to state a good and substantial defense that would justify a new trial, making it pointless to reopen the case.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari to annul a final and executory judgment is proper only if the judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction. A court acquires jurisdiction over the person of a defendant by voluntary appearance or by service of summons, and the filing of an answer with a cross-claim constitutes voluntary appearance, curing any defect in summons. A party who is aware of the proceedings and fails to repudiate the representation made by counsel is deemed to have acquiesced and ratified the counsel's authority.