This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-05-04 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| We find no error committed by the trial court in overruling Robinson's objection over the improper resort to summons by publication upon a foreign national like him and in an action in personam, notwithstanding that he raised it in a special appearance specifically raising the issue of lack of jurisdiction over his person. Courts acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiffs upon the filing of the complaint, while jurisdiction over the defendants in a civil case is acquired either through the service of summons upon them in the manner required by law or through their voluntary appearance in court and their submission to its authority.[42] A party who makes a special appearance in court challenging the jurisdiction of said court based on the ground of invalid service of summons is not deemed to have submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court.[43] | |||||
|
2007-04-27 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Neither did the trial court acquire jurisdiction over respondent by the latter's voluntary appearance in court proceedings. Note that a party who makes a special appearance in court challenging the jurisdiction of said court based on the ground of invalid service of summons is not deemed to have submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court.[19] In this case, records show that respondent, in its special appearance, precisely questioned the jurisdiction of the trial court on the ground of invalid service of summons. Thus, it cannot be deemed to have submitted to said court's authority. | |||||
|
2006-10-31 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is fundamental that courts acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiff once the complaint is filed. On the other hand, there are two ways through which jurisdiction over the defendant or respondent is acquired - either through the service of summons upon them or through their voluntary appearance in court. In the case of Avon Insurance PLC v. Court of Appeals,[28] we discussed the function of summons in court actions, to be - Fundamentally, the service of summons is intended to give official notice to the defendant or respondent that an action had been commenced against it. The defendant or respondent is thus put [on] guard as to the demands of the plaintiff as stated in the complaint. The service of summons upon the defendant becomes an important element in the operation of a court's jurisdiction upon a party to a suit, as service of summons upon the defendant is the means by which the court acquires jurisdiction over his person. Without service of summons, or when summons are improperly made, both the trial and the judgment, being in violation of due process, are null and void, unless the defendant waives the service of summons by voluntarily appearing and answering the suit. [29] Elsewhere, we declared that jurisdiction of the court over the person of the defendant or respondent cannot be acquired notwithstanding his knowledge of the pendency of a case against him unless he was validly served with summons.[30] Such is the important role a valid service of summons plays in court actions. | |||||
|
2005-06-29 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| We cannot infer actual receipt of summons by petitioner from the fact that the government corporate counsel filed a motion to dismiss the case against him and Mr. Cosejo appeared on his behalf during the summary hearing for the issuance of a temporary restraining order to ask for the postponement of the case. It is well-settled that a party who makes a special appearance in court challenging the jurisdiction of said court based on the ground of invalidity of summons, among others, cannot be considered to have submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court.[16] Even the assertion of affirmative defenses, aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, cannot be considered a waiver of the defense of lack of jurisdiction over such person.[17] | |||||