Jorgenetics Swine Improvement Corporation v. Thick & Thin Agri-Products, Inc.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Thick & Thin Agri-Products, Inc. (TTAI) filed a complaint for replevin with damages against Jorgenetics Swine Improvement Corporation (Jorgenetics). TTAI alleged that Jorgenetics failed to pay for feeds and supplies supplied on credit, amounting to Php20,000,000.00, which was secured by a chattel mortgage over Jorgenetics' hog livestock inventories. TTAI sought possession of 4,765 heads of hogs subject to the chattel mortgage, which Jorgenetics allegedly wrongfully withheld. Procedural History: The case originated in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, where a writ of replevin was issued. Jorgenetics moved to dismiss the complaint due to allegedly invalid service of summons. The RTC initially dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, ordering the return of the seized hogs. TTAI filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which annulled the dismissal order and reinstated the complaint, finding that Jorgenetics had submitted to the court's jurisdiction by filing a motion for damages against the replevin bond. However, subsequent RTC orders vacillated, with one judge ordering the enforcement of the dismissal and return of the hogs, and another reinstating the case but also ordering the return of the hogs. TTAI again filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, which declared the order enforcing the dismissal void and affirmed the reinstatement of the complaint, modifying it to delete the order for the return of the hogs. The Petition: These consolidated Petitions for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assail the CA's decisions. G.R. No. 201044 challenges the CA's decision to set aside the trial court's dismissal order and reinstate TTAI's replevin complaint. G.R. No. 222691 challenges the CA's subsequent decision finding the trial court in grave abuse of discretion for refusing to reinstate the complaint and ordering the implementation of the earlier dismissal order despite the CA's prior ruling. Jorgenetics argues that the trial court's dismissal order had become final and executory, and that the CA erred in finding that it submitted to the trial court's jurisdiction. TTAI, in turn, argues that the petitions are moot due to a subsequent decision on the merits in the main case, and that Jorgenetics' procedural defects should lead to dismissal.
Issue(s)
Whether the resolution of the Petitions has become moot in view of the decision on the merits in Civil Case No. Q-08-63757. Whether the Petitions should be dismissed for failure of Jorgenetics to comply with the rules on verification and certification of non-forum shopping. Whether the February 4, 2010 Order became final and executory upon the lapse of the 15-day period to file an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Whether Jorgenetics, in filing an application for damages and motion for issuance of a writ of execution after the trial court's issuance of a decision dismissing the complaint for replevin, may be considered to have submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the trial court. Whether the return of the hogs seized by virtue of the writ of replevin is proper.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the Petitions for lack of merit. It affirmed the decisions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP. No. 114682 and CA-G.R. SP No. 130075. The Court held that the petitions were not mooted by the decision on the merits in the main case, that Jorgenetics complied with the rules on verification and certification, that the February 4, 2010 Order did not become final and executory, that Jorgenetics submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court, and that the issue on the validity of the writ of replevin was mooted by the final decision on the merits.
Ratio Decidendi
On the mootness of the Petitions: The Court held that the Petitions were not mooted by the decision on the merits in the main case. A favorable ruling for Jorgenetics would entail setting aside the trial court's judgment on the merits due to a lack of jurisdiction over its person. A void judgment is considered no judgment at all and does not become final, thus, it can be attacked even without an appeal. Therefore, the determination of the jurisdictional issue remained a justiciable controversy with practical value. On compliance with verification and certification: The Court found that Mr. Romeo J. Jorge, as chairperson and president of Jorgenetics, was authorized to sign the verification and certification. The Court reiterated that certain corporate officials can sign these documents without a board resolution, and any doubt on authority can be cured by subsequent ratification. Furthermore, a variance in the date of verification and the petition is not fatal as long as the objective of ensuring good faith and veracity in the allegations is met. The Court found the verification and certification to be sufficiently compliant. On the finality of the February 4, 2010 Order: The Court ruled that the February 4, 2010 Order dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction was not final and executory. It clarified that an order dismissing an action without prejudice due to lack of jurisdiction over the person is not appealable under Rule 41 but must be assailed through a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. TTAI's timely filing of a Motion for Reconsideration and a subsequent Rule 65 petition prevented the order from becoming final. Therefore, the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the implementation of the dismissed order. On voluntary submission to jurisdiction: The Court held that Jorgenetics voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court by filing a Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Execution with Application for Damages without objecting to the court's jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that seeking affirmative relief from the court, such as an application for damages on the replevin bond, is tantamount to invoking the court's jurisdiction and a willingness to abide by the resolution of the case. This active participation, along with other subsequent motions seeking affirmative reliefs, cured any defect in the initial service of summons. On the propriety of returning the seized hogs: The Court found the issue on the validity and efficacy of the writ of replevin and the return of the seized hogs to be moot and academic. This is because a final and executory decision on the merits had been rendered in the main case, adjudicating rightful possession of the livestock to TTAI. Replevin is an ancillary writ whose existence depends on the outcome of the main case, and it cannot survive the main case of which it is an incident.
Main Doctrine
A party who actively participates in the proceedings by seeking affirmative reliefs from the court, such as filing a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution with an application for damages, is deemed to have voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the court, thereby curing any defect in the initial service of summons. Furthermore, an order dismissing an action without prejudice due to lack of jurisdiction over the person is not appealable under Rule 41 and must be assailed via a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65.