Gonzales v. Balikatan Kilusang Bayan Sa Pananalapi, Incorporated
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Balikatan Kilusang Bayan sa Pananalapi, Inc. is a cooperative, and the petitioners are its members. Petitioner Florentino Gonzales obtained a loan of P150,000 on November 7, 1997, with petitioners Edgardo Santos, Leopoldo Rosete, Felina Victoria, and Cristeta dela Cruz as co-makers. They jointly and severally agreed to repay the loan in monthly amortizations over two years. Petitioner Gonzales failed to make payments despite repeated written demands. Procedural History: Respondent filed a case for sum of money and damages against the petitioners in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Bocaue. Summons were served, and the case was set for hearing. Petitioners appeared but failed to file an answer, leading the MTC to declare them in default and allow respondent to present evidence ex parte. The MTC rendered a decision in favor of the respondent. Petitioners appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), arguing they were not notified of the motion to declare them in default and that summons was not properly served. The RTC affirmed the MTC's decision. Petitioners then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA). The Petition: The Court of Appeals dismissed the petitioners' petition for review on technical grounds: the certification of non-forum shopping was not signed by all petitioners, and relevant documents were not attached as required by Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The CA also denied their motion for reconsideration. Petitioners now seek review before this Court, raising issues regarding substantial compliance with procedural requirements, the validity of the judgment by default for alleged lack of jurisdiction due to improper summons, and the existence of a cause of action and jurisdiction.
Issue(s)
Whether or not the petitioners substantially complied with the certification on non-forum-shopping and on attachment of certain relevant documents. Whether or not the judgment by default is void for lack of jurisdiction over the petitioners due to improper service of summons, considering their subsequent voluntary appearance and failure to timely challenge the default order. Whether or not the case should be dismissed for lack of cause of action and jurisdiction, considering the petitioners' failure to timely question the MTC's jurisdiction.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed decisions of the Regional Trial Court and the Municipal Trial Court of Bocaue, Bulacan.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of substantial compliance with the certification on non-forum-shopping and attachment of documents: The Court held that the petition was appropriately and validly dismissed by the Court of Appeals. The certification of non-forum shopping must be signed by all petitioners, as the attestation requires personal knowledge. The lone signing petitioner could not be presumed to have personal knowledge of the filing or non-filing by his co-petitioners of any action or claim. The motion for reconsideration did not satisfactorily explain the failure of the other petitioners to sign the certification nor did it cure the defect. Therefore, there was no substantial compliance. On the issue of the validity of the judgment by default for lack of jurisdiction due to improper service of summons: The Court reiterated that a defendant's voluntary appearance in an action is equivalent to service of summons. The lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant may be waived either expressly or impliedly. When a defendant voluntarily appears, they are deemed to have submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the court. In this case, the petitioners appeared before the MTC on the scheduled hearing, as evidenced by their signatures in the minutes. This voluntary appearance cured any defect in the service of summons. Furthermore, petitioners' failure to move for the lifting of the order of default after it was issued served as a waiver on their part to later question its propriety. They waited for the decision to be rendered before questioning the default order, which is impermissible. On the issue of dismissal for lack of cause of action and jurisdiction: The Court found that petitioners failed to question the jurisdiction of the MTC over them from the very start. To properly avail of the defense of invalid service of summons, petitioners should have questioned it and the MTC's exercise of jurisdiction over them from the beginning. Their failure to object to the MTC's jurisdiction from the very beginning precludes them from raising it now as a ground to set aside the judgment by default. A defendant cannot speculate on the judgment of the court by objecting to jurisdiction only when the judgment is adverse. This would defeat the ends of justice and fair play.
Main Doctrine
A voluntary appearance in court, even without valid service of summons, is equivalent to service of summons and constitutes a waiver of any objection to the court's jurisdiction over the person. Furthermore, the failure to move for the lifting of an order of default after its issuance constitutes a waiver of the right to question its propriety.