SECOND DIVISION
OFELIA HERRERA-FELIX,REPRESENTED
BY
JOVITA
HERRERA-SEÑA,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
143736
August 11, 2004
-versus-
COURT OF APPEALS,AND ST. JOSEPH
RESOURCES
DEVELOPMENT, INC.,
Respondents.
R E S O L U T I O
N
CALLEJO,
SR., J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
This is a Petition for
Review on
Certiorari
assailing the decision[1]
of the Court of Appeals which dismissed the petition to annul the
decision[2]
of the Regional Trial Court of Malabon, Metro Manila, Branch 73, in
Civil
Case No. 1967, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of
herein petitioner Ofelia Herrera-Felix. The Antecedents
On March 11, 1993, respondent
St. Joseph Resource Development, Inc. filed a complaint for sum of
money
against the Spouses Restituto and Ofelia Felix with a prayer for a writ
of preliminary attachment. It was alleged therein that, during
the
period from November 16, 1992 to December 14, 1992, the Felix Spouses
purchased
from the respondent tubs of assorted fish, as follows:
Date of
Purchase
Amount of Fish Purchased
November 16,
1992
P 183,360.00
November 17,
1992
114,380.00
November 19,
1992
56,014.00chanrobles virtual law library
November 20,
1992
183,400.00chanrobles virtual law library
December
2,
1992
70,000.00
December
3,
1992
159,100.00
December
5,
1992
73,500.00chanrobles virtual law library
December
8,
1992
79,025.50chanrobles virtual law library
December
9,
1992
275,190.00
December 11,
1992
102,840.00chanrobles virtual law library
December 12,
1992
78,300.00
December 13,
1992
108,692.00
December 14,
1992
32,379.50
-----------------
Total
P 1,516,181.00
It was also alleged
that
the Felix Spouses still had an outstanding obligation amounting to
P1,132,065.50,
after deducting their total payment of P438,615.50 from their aggregate
purchases. The respondent prayed that, after due proceedings, judgment
be rendered in its favor, thus:
WHEREFORE,
it is respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered in favor of
plaintiff
and against defendants, ordering the latter to pay the former the
following:chanrobles virtual law library
1. P1,132,065.50,
representing
their unpaid obligation, including unpaid tubs, plus legal interest
from
the date of filing of the complaint;
2. Attorney’s fees
equivalent
to 25% of the foregoing amount; and
3. Costs of suit.
Plaintiff likewise
prays
that a writ of preliminary attachment be issued ex parte against the
properties
of defendants as security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may
be recovered.chanrobles virtual law library
Other just and
equitable
relief is also prayed for.[3]
The case was docketed
as
Civil Case No. 1967.chanrobles virtual law library
The trial court granted
the respondent’s prayer for a writ of preliminary attachment on a bond
of P1,132,065.50 which was posted on March 26, 1993. The Sheriff
levied and took custody of some of the personal properties of the Felix
Spouses. On March 26, 1993, a copy of the writ of preliminary
attachment,
summons and complaint were served on them at their residence, through
the
sister of Ofelia Herrera-Felix, Ma. Luisa Herrera.[4]
According to the Sheriff’s Return, Ofelia Herrera-Felix was out of the
country, as per the information relayed to him by Ma. Luisa Herrera. On
April 5, 1993, the Felix Spouses, through Atty. Celestino C. Juan,
filed
a motion praying for an extension of time to file their answer to the
complaint.[5]
On April 6, 1993, the trial court issued an Order granting the motion.
However, the Felix Spouses failed to file their answer to the
complaint.
The respondent then filed a Motion dated April 23, 1993 to declare the
said spouses in default,[6]
which motion was granted by the court in its Resolution[7]
dated May 13, 1993. A copy of the said resolution was sent to and
received by the counsel of the Felix Spouses through registered mail.cralaw:red
On August 11, 1993,
the court a quo rendered a decision in favor of the respondent, the
decretal
portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE,
judgment is hereby rendered ordering:
1. The defendants
to
pay, jointly and severally, the plaintiffs the amount of ONE MILLION
SEVENTY-SEVEN
THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED SIXTY-FIVE PESOS AND FIFTY CENTAVOS
(P1,077,565.50)
plus legal rate of interest from the date of the filing of the
complaint;
chan
robles virtual law library
2. The defendants to
pay, jointly and severally, the amount of TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND PESOS
(P25,000.00)
– as/for reasonable Attorney’s fees;
3. The defendants
to
pay the costs of this suit.
SO ORDERED.[8]
Copies of the said
decision
were mailed to the Felix Spouses and their counsel, Atty. Celestino C.
Juan, by registered mail. The copy of the decision addressed to
the
spouses was returned to the court after two notices for having been
“Unclaimed.”
However, then counsel for the Felix Spouses received his copy of the
decision.
The decision of the
trial court became final and executory after the Felix Spouses failed
to
appeal the same. The respondent filed a motion for a writ of
execution.
A copy thereof was served on the said spouses by registered mail, but
they
failed to oppose the motion. The court thereafter issued an order
granting
the motion and directing the issuance of a writ of execution. The
counsel for the Felix Spouses received a copy of the said order.
Thereafter, the following personal properties of the latter were levied
upon and sold by the sheriff at public auction for P83,200.00 to the
respondent
as the winning bidder:
(1) unit
Jeep-semi
stainlesschanrobles virtual law library
(1) unit
Jeep-stainless
(1)
Victor-Radio/TV/Cassette
Recorderchanrobles virtual law library
(1) Sony “17” TV
w/
remote controlchanrobles virtual law library
(1) Kawai Electric
Organchanrobles virtual law library
(3) Hitachi Stand
Fan
(1) Standard Desk
Fan
(1) 6 pieces Sala
Set.[9]
On August 14, 1995, the
Sheriff executed a Certificate of Sale of personal properties.[10]
On September 13, 1996,
petitioner Ofelia Herrera-Felix, represented by another sister, Jovita
Herrera-Seña, filed a petition with the Court of Appeals under
Rule
47 of the Rules of Court for the nullification of the trial court’s
judgment
by default, the writ of execution issued by the said court, and the
sale
of her properties at public auction. The petitioner alleged,
inter
alia, that the complaint and summons were handed over to her sister,
Ma.
Luisa Herrera, who was merely a visitor in her house and, as such, was
not a valid substituted service under Rule 14, Section 7 of the Rules
of
Court. She also alleged that her husband Restituto Felix had died
as early as April 23, 1988, as evidenced by his Certificate of Death.[11]
In its comment on the
petition, the respondent alleged that the substituted service of the
complaint
and summons on the petitioner, who was then temporarily outside the
Philippines,
through her sister Ma. Luisa Herrera, was valid and effective. The
respondent,
likewise, averred that even if such substituted service on the
petitioner
was defective, the defect was cured when the latter, through her
counsel,
Atty. Celestino C. Juan, appeared in court and moved for an extension
of
time to file her responsive pleading. The respondent also
maintained
that the petitioner and her counsel were served with copies of the
decision
of the court a quo, but that the petitioner failed to appeal the
decision.chanrobles virtual law library
In her reply to the
comment of the respondent, the petitioner alleged that since she failed
to file a responsive pleading to the complaint, the appearance of Atty.
Celestino C. Juan, as her counsel, did not constitute as a voluntary
submission
to the jurisdiction of the court.cralaw:red
On June 7, 2000, the
CA rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, finding that the court a quo validly acquired
jurisdiction
over the action and absent any ground warranting the annulment of its
judgment,
this petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.chanrobles virtual law library
SO ORDERED.[12]
The petitioner, through
her sister, Jovita Herrera-Seña, now comes to this Court via a
petition
for review on certiorari praying for the reversal of the decision of
the
Court of Appeals. She alleges that the trial court did not
acquire
jurisdiction over her person through the service of the complaint and
summons
on her sister, Ma. Luisa Herrera. She maintains that the latter was a
mere
visitor in her house, not a resident therein; hence, the decision of
the
trial court is null and void. She further alleges that even
assuming
the validity of the trial court’s decision, such decision never became
final and executory since she was not served a copy of the same. As
such,
the writ of execution issued by the trial court, the sale of her
personal
properties at public auction, as well as the issuance of the
Certificate
of Sale, are null and void. She asserts that the actuations of both the
trial court and the Sheriff deprived her of her right to due process.chanrobles virtual law library
The contentions of the
petitioner have no merit.cralaw:red
The court acquires jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant by service of the complaint and
summons
on him, either by personal service or by substituted service or by
extra-territorial
service thereof or by his voluntary personal appearance before the
court
or through counsel. In this case, the petitioner appeared before
the court, through counsel, and filed a motion for extension of time to
file her answer to the complaint which the trial court granted. She
even
admitted in the said motion that she was served with a copy of the
complaint
as well as the summons. The admissions made in a motion are
judicial
admissions which are binding on the party who made them. Such
party
is precluded from denying the same unless there is proof of palpable
mistake
or that no such admission was made.[13]
By filing the said motion,
through counsel, the petitioner thereby submitted herself to the
jurisdiction
of the trial court. Indeed, in Busuego vs. Court of Appeals,[14]
we ruled that:chanrobles virtual law library
A voluntary
appearance is a waiver of the necessity of a formal notice. An
appearance
in whatever form, without explicitly objecting to the jurisdiction of
the
court over the person, is a submission to the jurisdiction of the court
over the person. While the formal method of entering an appearance in a
cause pending in the courts is to deliver to the clerk a written
direction
ordering him to enter the appearance of the person who subscribes it,
an
appearance may be made by simply filing a formal motion, or plea or
answer.
This formal method of appearance is not necessary. He may appear
without
such formal appearance and thus submit himself to the jurisdiction of
the
court. He may appear by presenting a motion, for example, and unless by
such appearance he specifically objects to the jurisdiction of the
court,
he thereby gives his assent to the jurisdiction of the court over his
person.
When the appearance is by motion objecting to the jurisdiction of the
court
over his person, it must be for the sole and separate purpose of
objecting
to the jurisdiction of the court. If his motion is for any other
purpose
than to object to the jurisdiction of the court over his person, he
thereby
submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court.[15]chanrobles virtual law library
Equally barren of
factual
basis is the claim of the petitioner that she was not served with a
copy
of the decision of the trial court. The records show that aside
from
the copy of the decision sent to her by the Branch Clerk of Court by
registered
mail, another copy of the decision was served on her through her
counsel,
Atty. Celestino C. Juan, who received the same. The service of
the
decision on the petitioner, through counsel, is binding on her,
conformably
to Rule 13, Section 2 of the Rules of Court.[16]
We reject the petitioner’s
plaint of having been deprived of her right to due process.cralaw:red
The essence of due process
is a reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit evidence in support
of one’s defense. What the law proscribes, therefore, is the lack of
opportunity
to be heard.[17]
A party who opts not to avail of the opportunity to answer cannot
complain
of procedural due process. There can be no denial of due process where
a party had the opportunity to participate in the proceedings but
failed
to do so through his own fault.chanrobles virtual law library
WHEREFORE, the petition
is DENIED DUE COURSE. The assailed decision of the Court of
Appeals dated June 7, 2000 is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs
against
the petitioner.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.
Puno., J., (Chairman),
Austria-Martinez, Tinga, and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.cralaw:red
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Associate Justice Ramon A. Barcelona (retired), with
Associate
Justices Marina L. Buzon and Edgardo P. Cruz, concurring.
[2]
Penned by Presiding Judge Amanda Valera Cabigao.chanrobles virtual law library
[3]
Records, pp. 3-4.chanrobles virtual law library
[4]
Id. at 43.chanrobles virtual law library
[5]
Id. at 37.
[6]
Id. at 42.
[7]
Id. at 48.
[8]
Id. at 69.
[9]
Id. at 221.
[10]
Id. at 231.
[11]
CA Rollo, p. 44.
[12]
Id. at 79.chanrobles virtual law library
[13]
Section 4, Rule 129, of the Revised Rules of Evidence reads:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Sec.
4. Judicial admissions. – An admission, verbal or written, made by a
party
in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require
proof.
The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made
through
palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.chanrobles virtual law library
[14]
151 SCRA 376 (1987), citing Flores v. Zurbito, 37 Phil. 746 (1918).
[15]
Id. at 385.chanrobles virtual law library
[16]
SEC. 2. Filing and service, defined.— Filing is the act of presenting
the
pleading or other paper to the clerk of court.chanrobles virtual law library
Service
is the act of providing a party with a copy of the pleading or paper
concerned.
If any party has appeared by counsel, service upon him shall be made
upon
his counsel or one of them, unless service upon the party himself is
ordered
by the court. Where one counsel appears for several parties, he shall
only
be entitled to one copy of any paper served upon him by the opposite
side.
[17]
Douglas F. Anama vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128609, January 29,
2004. |