This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2014-07-09 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| In Gonzales v. Balikatan Kilusang Bayan sa Panlalapi, Inc.,[21] we held that a party's appearance in a case is equivalent to a service of summons and that objections must be timely raised: In this regard, petitioners should be reminded of the provision in the Rules of Court that a defendant's voluntary appearance in an action shall be equivalent to service of summons. Further, the lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant may be waived either expressly or impliedly. When a defendant voluntarily appears, he is deemed to have submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court. If he does not wish to waive this defense, he must do so seasonably by motion, and object thereto. | |||||
|
2010-04-20 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Only petitioner Tomas V. Alonso has executed and signed the sworn certification against forum shopping attached to the petition. Although neither of his co-petitioners - Mercedes V. Alonso and Asuncion V. Alonso - has joined the certification, Tomas did not present any written express authorization in his favor authorizing him to sign the certification in their behalf. The signing of the certification by only one of the petitioners could not be presumed to reflect the personal knowledge by his co-petitioners of the filing or non-filing of any similar action or claim.[23] Hence, the failure of Mercedes and Asuncion to sign and execute the certification along with Tomas warranted the dismissal of their petition.[24] | |||||
|
2007-04-13 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Lastly, we are constrained to strike down petitioner's argument that the CA did not acquire jurisdiction over his person due to respondent's alleged failure to serve him a copy of his petition. An examination of the records of the case shows that petitioner did in fact receive a copy of respondent's CA petition.[20] Moreover, he submitted his pleadings in the CA despite not having allegedly received a copy of the said petition. A party's voluntary appearance (which can be done by filing pleadings through counsel) manifests his submission to the court's authority.[21] | |||||
|
2007-02-05 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| As a general rule, notice of motion is required where a party has a right to resist the relief sought by the motion and principles of natural justice demand that his right be not affected without an opportunity to be heard.[20] The three-day notice required by law is intended not for the benefit of the movant but to avoid surprises upon the adverse party and to give the latter time to study and meet the arguments of the motion.[21] Principles of natural justice demand that the right of a party should not be affected without giving it an opportunity to be heard.[22] | |||||
|
2006-10-31 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| The general rule is that the certificate of non-forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners in a case and the signature of only one of them is insufficient.[31] Nevertheless, the rules on forum shopping, which were designed to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice, should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert their own ultimate and legitimate objective. Strict compliance with the provisions regarding the certificate of non-forum shopping merely underscores its mandatory nature in that the certification cannot be altogether dispensed with or its requirements completely disregarded.[32] Under justifiable circumstances, the Court has relaxed the rule requiring the submission of such certification considering that although it is obligatory, it is not jurisdictional.[33] | |||||
|
2006-07-31 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Regarding the certificate of non-forum shopping, the general rule is that all the petitioners or plaintiffs in a case should sign it. To merit the Court's consideration, petitioners must show reasonable cause for failure to personally sign the certification.[21] In this case, petitioners assert that the certification was not signed by all of them for the following reasons: "1.) when they were abandoned by their leader Ruben Salili, petitioners decided to continue their cause. Petitioners have chosen their co-petitioner Tirso Enopia as their new leader and authorized him together with Virgilio Nano, to continue to prosecute their case up to the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court, if needed; 2.) almost all of the petitioners are already employed in different deep-sea fishing companies, operating in high seas, some in Indonesian waters, some in Palau Territory, and some in Zamboanga, and a fishing expedition usually lasts for about 3 to 6 months; and 3.) of the very limited time left for them to file their petition in this case."[22] | |||||