Menghra v. Tarachand
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The plaintiff-appellee, Tolaram Menghra, filed a complaint against defendants Bulchand Tarachand and Chotirmal Rewachand. The Court of First Instance of Manila rendered a judgment sentencing the defendants jointly and severally to pay specific sums of money with interest. Procedural History: The defendant Bulchand Tarachand appealed the judgment of the Court of First Instance. The Petition: The appellant assigned as errors the lower court's failure to hold that its judgment was null and void for lack of jurisdiction over his person and its failure to set aside the judgment due to his excusable negligence.
Issue(s)
Whether the lower court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the defendant-appellant Bulchand Tarachand by the publication of the summons in the territory of Hawaii. Whether the judgment rendered against the defendant-appellant was obtained through his excusable negligence.
Ruling
The appealed judgment is set aside and the case is remanded to the court of origin for reopening, admission of the defendant-appellant's answer, and a new trial.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction over the person: The appellant contended that the court did not acquire jurisdiction by publication in Hawaii as the action did not involve property in the Philippines. However, the Court held that even if jurisdiction was not acquired by publication, the appellant submitted to the court's jurisdiction when he filed a motion contesting jurisdiction and simultaneously praying for relief from the judgment, presenting an affidavit of merit. This action impliedly waived his special appearance and voluntarily submitted him to the court's jurisdiction, citing several Supreme Court cases. On the issue of excusable negligence: The Court found that the defendant-appellant's declaration in default occurred while he was in the territory of Hawaii and unable to appear to answer the complaint. This constituted an excuse for his failure to appear. Furthermore, the facts alleged in his verified answer and special defenses could potentially alter the outcome of the decision rendered against him by default. Therefore, it was deemed proper to set aside the judgment in accordance with Section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure, allowing him to prove his defense.
Main Doctrine
A defendant who contests the jurisdiction of the court over his person and at the same time prays for relief from a judgment rendered against him, implicitly waives his special appearance and voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of the court. However, if the defendant was in a foreign territory during the default and could not appear, and his answer may alter the decision, the judgment may be set aside due to excusable negligence.