This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2010-03-10 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In addition, we agree with petitioner that the RTC had indeed acquired jurisdiction over the person of private respondent when the latter's counsel entered his appearance on private respondent's behalf, without qualification and without questioning the propriety of the service of summons, and even filed two Motions for Extension of Time to File Answer. In effect, private respondent, through counsel, had already invoked the RTC's jurisdiction over her person by praying that the motions for extension of time to file answer be granted. We have held that the filing of motions seeking affirmative relief, such as, to admit answer, for additional time to file answer, for reconsideration of a default judgment, and to lift order of default with motion for reconsideration, are considered voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court.[24] When private respondent earlier invoked the jurisdiction of the RTC to secure affirmative relief in her motions for additional time to file answer, she voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the RTC and is thereby estopped from asserting otherwise.[25] | |||||
|
2009-04-07 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The elementary test for failure to state a cause of action is whether the complaint alleges facts which if true would justify the relief demanded. The inquiry is into the sufficiency, not the veracity, of the material allegations. If the allegations in the complaint furnish sufficient basis on which it can be maintained, it should not be dismissed regardless of the defense that may be presented by the defendant.[37] | |||||
|
2007-09-12 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited v. Catalan,[22] this Court held:The elementary test for failure to state a cause of action is whether the complaint alleges facts which if true would justify the relief demanded. Stated otherwise, may the court render a valid judgment upon the facts alleged therein? The inquiry is into the sufficiency, not the veracity of the material allegations. If the allegations in the complaint furnish sufficient basis on which it can be maintained, it should not be dismissed regardless of the defense that may be presented by the defendants.[23] | |||||
|
2007-08-14 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is settled that a party who makes a special appearance in court for the purpose of challenging the jurisdiction of said court, based on the invalidity of the service of summons, cannot be considered to have voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court.[36] In the present case, petitioner has been consistent in all its pleadings in assailing the service of summons upon it and the jurisdiction of the RTC over its person. Thus, the petitioner cannot be declared in estoppel when it filed an Answer ad cautelam with compulsory counterclaim before the RTC while the instant Petition was still pending before this Court. The petitioner was in a situation wherein it had no other choice but to file an Answer; otherwise, the RTC would have already declared that petitioner had waived its right to file responsive pleadings.[37] Neither can the compulsory counterclaim contained in petitioner's Answer ad cautelam be considered as voluntary appearance of petitioner before the RTC. Petitioner seeks to recover damages and attorney's fees as a consequence of the unfounded suit filed by respondent against it. Thus, petitioner's compulsory counterclaim is only consistent with its position that the respondent wrongfully filed a case against it and the RTC erroneously exercised jurisdiction over its person. | |||||
|
2007-06-08 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited v. Catalan,[12] this Court held: The elementary test for failure to state a cause of action is whether the complaint alleges facts which if true would justify the relief demanded. Stated otherwise, may the court render a valid judgment upon the facts alleged therein? The inquiry is into the sufficiency, not the veracity of the material allegations. If the allegations in the complaint furnish sufficient basis on which it can be maintained, it should not be dismissed regardless of the defense that may be presented by the defendants.[13] Moreover, the complaint does not have to establish or allege facts proving the existence of a cause of action at the outset; this will have to be done at the trial on the merits of the case.[14] To sustain a motion to dismiss for lack of cause of action, the complaint must show that the claim for relief does not exist, rather than that a claim has been defectively stated, or is ambiguous, indefinite or uncertain.[15] | |||||
|
2007-04-13 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| As to the question of whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the persons of herein respondents, the Court has held that the filing of motions seeking affirmative relief, such as, to admit answer, for additional time to file answer, for reconsideration of a default judgment, and to lift order of default with motion for reconsideration, are considered voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court.[15] Hence, in the present case, when respondents filed their Motion for Leave to Intervene, attaching thereto their Answer-in-Intervention, they have effectively submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the court and the court, in turn, acquired jurisdiction over their persons. But this circumstance did not cure the fatal defect of non-inclusion of respondents as indispensable parties in the complaint filed by petitioner. It must be emphasized that respondents were not able to participate during the pre-trial much less present evidence in support of their claims. In other words, the court acquired jurisdiction over the persons of herein respondents only when they filed their Motion for Leave to Intervene with the RTC. Prior to that, they were strangers to Civil Case No. OD-306. | |||||
|
2007-02-16 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| [47] Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited v. Catalan, G.R. Nos. 159590 and 159591, October 18, 2004, 440 SCRA 498, 513-514. | |||||