Oriental Media, Inc. v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Votra (Phil.), Inc. filed a collection case against Oriental Media, Inc. in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City. Summons was served upon Marlyn Lasaya, a Personnel Assistant-Receptionist at the Evening Post, who refused to receive or sign for it. Oriental Media failed to file a responsive pleading, leading to an order of default and subsequent ex-parte reception of evidence by Votra. 2. Procedural History: The RTC rendered a decision in favor of Votra, ordering Oriental Media to pay a principal sum with interest and attorney's fees. Oriental Media received the decision on July 25, 1986, and subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration and to set aside the default order and decision, which was denied on October 9, 1986. Oriental Media then filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment on November 4, 1986, which was dismissed by the RTC on February 24, 1987, for being premature. Votra filed a motion for execution, which was granted by the RTC on May 13, 1987. Oriental Media filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) on May 27, 1987, challenging the RTC's orders. The CA dismissed Oriental Media's petition on September 28, 1987. 3. The Petition: Oriental Media, Inc. filed the present petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's decision. The petition argues that the RTC never acquired jurisdiction over Oriental Media due to improper service of summons. It also contends that the order granting execution was premature and that the Petition for Relief from Judgment should have been considered as a motion for new trial. Oriental Media claims denial of due process, asserting that a void decision cannot be executed and can be attacked collaterally. The petition further argues that the CA erred in holding that Oriental Media waived its objection to jurisdiction by filing a motion for reconsideration and a petition for relief from judgment.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person of Oriental Media, Inc. due to improper service of summons; and whether Oriental Media, Inc. waived its objection to the jurisdiction of the trial court by filing a motion for reconsideration and a petition for relief from judgment. Whether the petition for certiorari was the proper remedy given the availability of appeal. Whether the order granting the motion for execution was premature; and whether the judgment had become final.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the petition for certiorari. The judgment by default and the order dismissing the petition for relief from judgment had become final and executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction and waiver: The Court held that Oriental Media, Inc. voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court. By filing a motion for reconsideration that not only questioned the jurisdiction but also prayed for affirmative reliefs, such as allowing it to file an answer and asserting a meritorious defense (payment of the obligation), Oriental waived its right to question the court's jurisdiction over its person. The Court cited established jurisprudence that a voluntary appearance and participation in the proceedings, beyond merely objecting to jurisdiction, constitutes submission to the court's authority. The filing of a petition for relief from judgment, after the denial of the motion for reconsideration, was also considered an improper remedy and did not interrupt the period for appeal, further solidifying the finality of the judgment. On the propriety of certiorari as a remedy: The Court reiterated that certiorari is not a substitute for an appeal, especially when an appeal was available but lost due to the petitioner's own volition. Oriental had the remedy of appeal from the order denying its motion for reconsideration and from the order dismissing its petition for relief from judgment. Instead of availing itself of these remedies within the reglementary periods, Oriental filed a petition for certiorari. The Court emphasized that remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive. While exceptions exist, the circumstances in this case did not warrant the extraordinary remedy of certiorari, as there was no showing of fraud, misrepresentation, or obstruction that prevented Oriental from pursuing an appeal. On the finality of the judgment: The Court found that Oriental committed serious procedural lapses, leading to the default judgment and the order dismissing its petition for relief from judgment becoming final and executory. The period to appeal the denial of the motion for reconsideration expired on November 5, 1986. The petition for relief, filed within the appeal period, was premature and did not interrupt the running of the period to appeal. Consequently, the judgment became final on November 6, 1986. Similarly, after the dismissal of the petition for relief on February 24, 1987, Oriental had until March 22, 1987, to appeal the dismissal order but failed to do so, instead filing the petition for certiorari 81 days later. Thus, the judgment and orders were beyond appellate review.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal, and a party who voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of the court by filing a motion for reconsideration that seeks affirmative relief, waives any objection to the court's jurisdiction over its person.