Orosa v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondents Bertan Press and Antonio J. Bertoso initiated a complaint for a sum of money against petitioners Ramon S. Orosa, Jose S. Orosa, Liza O. Trinidad, Myrna D. Destura, and Alfredo S. Mendoza. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of Manila, after issuing summons, declared the petitioners in default upon the urgent ex-parte motion of the private respondents, due to the petitioners' failure to file an answer within the reglementary period. A subsequent motion for reconsideration and the filing of an answer by the petitioners were denied and expunged, respectively. Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals, which dismissed their petition and denied their motion for a writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction and/or temporary restraining order. A subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied. The Petition: Petitioners seek review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals. They contend that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion by affirming the lower court's alleged gross misinterpretation of Sections 7 and 8 of Rule 14 of the Rules of Court and by declaring them in default. Petitioners argue that there was no valid service of summons as there was no showing of earnest efforts to serve them personally, thus the lower court never acquired jurisdiction. They also claim they were served summons on February 9, 1993, making their motion for additional time to answer timely.
Issue(s)
Whether there was a valid service of summons on the petitioners. Whether the petitioners waived any defect in the service of summons by filing a motion for additional time to file an answer. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the trial court's order declaring petitioners in default.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the trial court's order declaring petitioners in default is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of service of summons: The Court held that while the sheriff's return was bereft of particulars on the impossibility of personal service, the petitioners are deemed to have waived any flaw in the court's jurisdiction arising from defective service of summons. The Court emphasized that the sheriff's return is prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein, and petitioners failed to present clear and convincing evidence to overcome this presumption. On the waiver of defects in service of summons: This is because, instead of entering a special appearance to question the service, they filed a motion for additional time to file an answer. Such action constitutes a voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court, thereby waiving any defect in the mode of service. Therefore, the motion for additional time was submitted beyond the reglementary period. On the alleged grave abuse of discretion: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals in affirming the trial court's decision. The granting of a motion to file an answer after the prescriptive period had expired is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Since the petitioners failed to demonstrate that the trial court gravely abused its discretion in denying their motion, the appellate court's affirmation was proper. The Court reiterated that parties should not assume that courts are bound to grant the time they pray for, and a motion not acted upon in due time is deemed denied. Consequently, the order declaring petitioners in default was valid.
Main Doctrine
A party who files a motion for additional time to file an answer, instead of a special appearance questioning the propriety of the service of summons, is deemed to have waived any flaw in the court's jurisdiction arising from defective service of summons and voluntarily submitted to the court's jurisdiction.