Pan-Asiatic Travel Corp. v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Destinations Travel Phil., Inc. (DESTINATIONS) initiated a lawsuit against Pan-Asiatic Travel Corp. (PAN-ASIATIC) seeking a refund for alleged unutilized airplane tickets. The initial claim was for P48,742.33, which was later amended to P103,866.35. The core of the dispute revolved around the validity of ticket usage and the subsequent financial obligations between the two travel corporations. 2. Procedural History: DESTINATIONS filed its complaint on March 21, 1980. After a motion to declare PAN-ASIATIC in default, PAN-ASIATIC filed a motion to dismiss, which was withdrawn upon learning of an amended complaint. PAN-ASIATIC subsequently received summons for the amended complaint and filed several motions for extensions and a motion for a bill of particulars. A second amended complaint was admitted, but no new summons was served on PAN-ASIATIC. DESTINATIONS then filed another motion to declare PAN-ASIATIC in default, which was granted, leading to an ex parte trial and a default judgment on January 4, 1982. PAN-ASIATIC's motion to lift the default order and vacate the judgment was denied. An appeal was filed, but it was dismissed by the trial court as untimely. A subsequent petition for certiorari and mandamus before the Court of Appeals was also dismissed, leading to the present petition. 3. The Petition: PAN-ASIATIC seeks review of the Court of Appeals' decision, primarily arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction when it rendered the default judgment because no new summons was served after the filing of the second amended complaint, which allegedly introduced new causes of action. PAN-ASIATIC also contends that its appeal was timely filed, asserting that its omnibus motion to lift the default order should be treated as a petition for relief under Rule 38, thus allowing a full 30-day appeal period from the denial of that motion. The petition raises two main issues: the trial court's jurisdiction over PAN-ASIATIC's person and the timeliness of the appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether or not the trial court had jurisdiction over the person of petitioner when it rendered the decision of January 4, 1982. Whether or not petitioner's appeal in Civil Case No. 130608 was filed within the reglementary period.
Ruling
The petition is hereby DISMISSED. Costs against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1 (Jurisdiction over the person): The Supreme Court held that the trial court had jurisdiction over the person of PAN-ASIATIC. The Court reiterated the rule established in Atkins, Kroll and Co. v. Domingo and Ong Peng v. Custodio, stating that if a defendant has already appeared in the action, service of an amended complaint, even if it introduces new causes of action, is sufficient without new summons. PAN-ASIATIC had effectively appeared in the case by filing several motions for extension of time to file a responsive pleading and a motion for bill of particulars after being properly served with summons on the first amended complaint. Therefore, ordinary service of the Second Amended Complaint upon PAN-ASIATIC was sufficient, and no new summons was necessary for the court to acquire or retain jurisdiction over its person. The subsequent failure of PAN-ASIATIC to file its Answer within the prescribed period after notice of the order admitting the Second Amended Complaint justified the trial court in declaring it in default and proceeding with the trial ex parte. On Issue 2 (Timeliness of Appeal): The Supreme Court ruled that PAN-ASIATIC's appeal was filed out of time. The Court clarified that the Omnibus Motion to Lift Order of Default and to Vacate Judgment by Default was in the nature of a Motion for New Trial under Rule 37, not a Petition for Relief under Rule 38, because it was filed before the judgment became final. As such, the order denying the Omnibus Motion was not independently appealable, but the time during which the motion was pending had to be deducted from the reglementary period for appeal. The period from receiving the judgment (January 25, 1982) to filing the Omnibus Motion (February 24, 1982) was twenty-nine days, leaving one day within the thirty-day appeal period. PAN-ASIATIC received the denial order on April 2, 1982, and had until April 3, 1982, to perfect its appeal. However, on April 2, 1982, PAN-ASIATIC filed a motion for reconsideration, which it later withdrew on April 30, 1982, the same day it filed its notice of appeal, appeal bond, and record on appeal. Since the motion for reconsideration was withdrawn, it was considered as if it was never filed, and the remaining one-day period for appeal remained unchanged. Consequently, the appeal filed on April 30, 1982, was clearly out of time.
Main Doctrine
When a defendant has already appeared in a case, ordinary service of an amended complaint upon him is sufficient, and no new summons need be served, even if the amended complaint introduces new causes of action. Furthermore, an appeal filed beyond the reglementary period, after a motion for reconsideration of an order denying a motion to lift an order of default and vacate a judgment by default was withdrawn, is deemed filed out of time.