This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2011-11-28 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Thus, while mindful of our ruling in La Naval and the new Section 20, Rule 20, this Court, in several cases, ruled that seeking affirmative relief in a court is tantamount to voluntary appearance therein.[45] Thus, in Philippine Commercial International Bank v. Dy Hong Pi,[46] wherein defendants filed a "Motion for Inhibition without submitting themselves to the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court" subsequent to their filing of a "Motion to Dismiss (for Lack of Jurisdiction)," we held: Besides, any lingering doubts on the issue of voluntary appearance dissipate when the respondents' motion for inhibition is considered. This motion seeks a sole relief: inhibition of Judge Napoleon Inoturan from further hearing the case. Evidently, by seeking affirmative relief other than dismissal of the case, respondents manifested their voluntary submission to the court's jurisdiction. It is well-settled that the active participation of a party in the proceedings is tantamount to an invocation of the court's jurisdiction and a willingness to abide by the resolution of the case, and will bar said party from later on impugning the court's jurisdiction.[47] (Emphasis supplied.) | |||||
|
2010-12-15 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It is true 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.[7] In the present case, when respondents filed their Answer-in-Intervention they submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the court and the court, in turn, acquired jurisdiction over their persons. Respondents, thus, became parties to the action. Subsequently, however, respondents' Answer-in-Intervention was dismissed without prejudice. From then on, they ceased to be parties in the case so much so that they did not have the opportunity to present evidence to support their claims, much less participate in the compromise agreement entered into by and between herein petitioner and his co-heirs on one hand and the defendant in Civil Case No. 12887 on the other. Stated differently, when their Answer-in-Intervention was dismissed, herein respondents lost their standing in court and, consequently, became strangers to Civil Case No. 12887. It is basic that no man shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger, and strangers to a case are not bound by judgment rendered by the court.[8] Thus, being strangers to Civil Case No. 12887, respondents are not bound by the judgment rendered therein. | |||||
|
2010-09-29 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In the fairly recent Palma v. Galvez,[24] the Court reiterated its holding in Orion Security Corporation, stating: "[I]n civil cases, the trial court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defendant either by the service of summons or by the latter's voluntary appearance and submission to the authority of the former." | |||||