4. Voluntary Appearance

Summary Rules: Jurisdiction over the Defendant

Special appearance operates as an exception to the general rule on voluntary appearance;

Accordingly, objections to the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the defendant must be explicitly made, i.e., set forth in an unequivocal manner; and

Failure to do so constitutes voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court, especially in instances where a pleading or motion seeking affirmative relief is filed and submitted to the court for resolution. (Optima. Realty Corp v. Heirtz PH Exclusive Cars, G.R. no. 183035, 2013).

Jurisdiction Over The Issues

The power of the court to try and decide the issues raised in the pleadings of the parties. (Reyes v. Diaz, G.R. No. L- 48754, 1941).

An ISSUE is a disputed point or question to which parties to an action have narrowed down their several allegations and upon which they are desirous of obtaining a decision.

With respect to an issue raised by the pleadings, an issue arises because the material allegations of a claiming party are specifically denied by the defending party.

Who May Petition (DEPOSITION BEFORE ACTION)

• Any person who wants to perpetuate his/her own testimony; or
• Any person who wants to perpetuate the testimony of another person.

A non-resident foreign corporation may request for depositions, whether oral or written. (San Luis v. Rojas, G.R. No. 159127, 2008)

In criminal cases, filing a Motion for Leave to Take Deposition is a voluntary appearance and he subjects himself to the jurisdiction of the court. (Disini v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 175730, 2010)

VOLUNTARY APPEARANCE

General Rule: Voluntary appearance is equivalent to service of summons.

Exception: Filing a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction is NOT considered as voluntary appearance.

Inclusion in motion to dismiss of other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over person of defendant shall NOT be deemed as voluntary appearance.

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. (Perkin Elmer Singapore Pte Ltd. v. Dakila Trading Corporation, G.R. No. 172242, 2007)

Where the Defendant is a Foreign Private Juridical Entity

Where the defendant is a foreign private juridica; entity and service of summons is made on the government official designated by law to receive the same, the answer shall be filed within sixty (60) calendar days after receipts of summons by such entity.

Q: Was there a defective service of summons when the court’s process server resorted to substituted service without complying with the requirement in connection thereto and thus the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner?

A: No. Under Rule 14 Section 20 of the Rules of Court, “the defendant’s voluntary appearance in the action shall be equivalent to service of summons”. It is undisputed that the Petitioner Spouses fully and actively participated in the proceedings before the RTC and CA - they filed their answer and amended answer, sought affirmative relief, and participated in the pre-trial, and after three decades of litigation, the petitioner spouses cannot alleged for the first time that their right to be heard was transgressed. Hence, Spouses are deemed to have voluntarily appeared before the court.