Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 37 views

    Ambon

    Uploaded by

    Kik Etc
    Private respondents filed a complaint against petitioners in an RTC. The RTC declared petitioners in default for failing to answer within the required time period after being served summons through their secretary and employee. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration and answer. The RTC denied the motion and expunged the answer. The CA dismissed the petitioners' appeal. The Supreme Court ruled that while service of summons did not comply with the rules, petitioners waived any objection by filing a motion for extension to answer beyond the required period, thus submitting to the RTC's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court denied the petition.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ambon

    Uploaded by

    Kik Etc
    37 views2 pages
    Private respondents filed a complaint against petitioners in an RTC. The RTC declared petitioners in default for failing to answer within the required time period after being served summons through their secretary and employee. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration and answer. The RTC denied the motion and expunged the answer. The CA dismissed the petitioners' appeal. The Supreme Court ruled that while service of summons did not comply with the rules, petitioners waived any objection by filing a motion for extension to answer beyond the required period, thus submitting to the RTC's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court denied the petition.

    Original Description:

    Ambon

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Private respondents filed a complaint against petitioners in an RTC. The RTC declared petitioners in default for failing to answer within the required time period after being served summons through their secretary and employee. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration and answer. The RTC denied the motion and expunged the answer. The CA dismissed the petitioners' appeal. The Supreme Court ruled that while service of summons did not comply with the rules, petitioners waived any objection by filing a motion for extension to answer beyond the required period, thus submitting to the RTC's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court denied the petition.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    37 views2 pages

    Ambon

    Uploaded by

    Kik Etc
    Private respondents filed a complaint against petitioners in an RTC. The RTC declared petitioners in default for failing to answer within the required time period after being served summons through their secretary and employee. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration and answer. The RTC denied the motion and expunged the answer. The CA dismissed the petitioners' appeal. The Supreme Court ruled that while service of summons did not comply with the rules, petitioners waived any objection by filing a motion for extension to answer beyond the required period, thus submitting to the RTC's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court denied the petition.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    [G.R. No. 118696. September 3, 1996] RAMON S. OROSA, JOSE S.

    OROSA, LIZA O. TRINIDAD, MYRNA D. DESTURA and ALFREDO S.


    MENDOZA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, BERTAN
    PRESS and ANTONIO J. BERTOSO, respondent.

    FACTS:

    Private respondents Bertan Press and Antonio J. Bertoso filed 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 before the Regional
    Trial Court of Manila. Accordingly, the trial court issued the corresponding
    summons to be served upon petitioners through their secretary and to
    Mendoza through his employee.
    Petitioners filed a motion for additional time to file answer,however, upon
    urgent ex-parte motion by private respondents the trial court declared
    petitioners in default for failure to answer within the reglementary
    period. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration and at the same time filed
    their answer but the court denied the motion for reconsideration and
    expunged petitioners' answer from the records. RTC ruled in favour of private
    respondent. Petitioners filed petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules
    of Court before respondent Court of Appeals which rendered the assailed
    decision dismissing the petition and denying the motion for issuance of a writ
    of preliminary prohibitory injunction and/or temporary restraining order.[1] A
    motion for reconsideration was filed but the same was likewise denied. Hence
    this petition.

    ISSUE: whether or not there was a valid service of summons to acquire


    jurisdiction over the petitioners

    HELD: Jurisdiction was never acquired over them by the lower


    court. Secs. 7 and 8 provide -

    Sec. 7. Personal service of summons. - The summons shall be served by handing a


    copy thereof to the defendant in person, or, if he refuses to receive it, by tendering it
    to him.
    Sec. 8. Substituted service. - If the defendant cannot be served within a reasonable
    time as provided in the preceding section, service may be effected (a) by leaving
    copies of the summons at the defendant's dwelling house or residence with some
    person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or (b) by leaving the copies
    at defendant's office or regular place of business with some competent person in
    charge thereof.

    However, they are deemed to have waived any flaw in the court's jurisdiction
    arising from a defective service of summons. For, instead of entering a special
    appearance questioning the propriety of the service of summons, hence, the
    exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court over petitioners, they filed a motion for
    additional time to file answer on 24 February 1993, which was beyond the
    reglementary period. In effect, they voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of
    the court. Consequently, whatever defect there was in the mode of service of
    summons was deemed waived and the court acquired jurisdiction over the
    persons of petitioners by their voluntary submission thereto.

    DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

    Resultantly, the instant petition is DENIED. The decision of respondent


    Court of Appeals dated 18 October 1994 as well as its resolution of 20
    January 1995 is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.

    You might also like