February 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > February 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 176522 : February 17, 2010] LOYOLA MEMORIAL CHAPELS AND CREMATORIUM, INC. V. CHRISTOPHER CORPUZ:
[G.R. No. 176522 : February 17, 2010]
LOYOLA MEMORIAL CHAPELS AND CREMATORIUM, INC. V. CHRISTOPHER CORPUZ
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 17 February 2010:
G.R. No. 176522 (Loyola Memorial Chapels and Crematorium, Inc. v. Christopher Corpuz).-
Petitioner Loyola Memorial Chapels and Crematorium, Inc. (Loyola) dismissed respondent Christopher Corpuz from work after finding that he initiated a fight against a co-employee inside the company premises while still on duty. Corpuz filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Loyola. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Corpuz, but on appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission reversed. Since Loyola's motion for reconsideration was denied, Loyola filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed as CA-G.R. SP 96278.
On November 20, 2006, the CA issued a resolution directing Loyola to furnish it with Corpuz's current address since the copy of the resolution it sent on October 6, 2006 to Corpuz at his address on record was returned unserved with the notation "moved out." Loyola manifested it had no information as to the present address of Corpuz. It had also used Corpuz's address on record to furnish him with a copy of the petition that was likewise returned with the notation "RTS moved out."
On December 5, 2006, the CA dismissed the petition for failure of the court to acquire jurisdiction upon the person of Corpuz, pursuant to Sec. 4, Rule 461 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. On January 31, 2007, the CA also dismissed Loyola's motion for reconsideration. Since the December 5, 2006 resolution was returned unserved and Corpuz had not voluntarily submitted to the court's jurisdiction, the CA held that it had no choice but to dismiss the petition since it had not acquired jurisdiction over Corpuz.
Loyola thus filed this Petition for Review, arguing that while Sec. 4, Rule 46 provides the modes by which the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the respondent, it does not categorically state that the failure of respondent to receive such service will be a ground for dismissal of the petition. Jurisdiction attaches to the CA through the service on respondent of its order indicating its initial action on the petition. The act of serving the order upon respondent shall suffice. The right to appeal should not be made to depend on the act or omission of another party to provide notice of his change of address.
Corpuz, represented by his counsel, filed his Comment to the petition. He agrees with the CA that there must be an actual receipt of the order or resolution so that the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the respondent. The service on the respondent contemplated in Sec. 4, Rule 46 is no different from the service of summons in the initial filing of complaints in lower courts. The respondent cannot be considered to have been notified if there was no actual receipt by him of the order or resolution or there was no voluntary appearance before the court. Hence, the court never acquires jurisdiction over him.
On August 17, 2009, the Court dismissed the petition for failure of counsel for petitioner to file a reply to the Comment without justifiable cause in accordance with Sec. 5(e), Rule 56 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. However, upon Loyola's motion for reconsideration, the Court, on November 16, 2009, reinstated the Petition and Comment and noted the attached Reply.
Loyola in its Reply argues that while respondent has the right to be served with all the pleadings filed before the court, he also has the concomitant obligation to provide notice of any change of his address or that of his counsel. Pleadings and service of notices must be made at the addressee's last known address on record unless there is a change of address duly filed.
It should be noted that Loyola and this Court sent Corpuz copies of the petition and this Court's resolutions at his last known address on record, the same address used by the CA and Loyola in serving the petition for certiorari and CA resolutions upon Corpuz. The resolutions of this Court were returned unserved with the notations "RTS-Moved Out." Nevertheless, respondent through his counsel filed a Motion for Additional Time to File Comment (With Formal Entry of Appearance) dated July 10, 2007 and Comment/Opposition dated March 3, 2008. 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.[2] Corpuz's filing of the motion constitutes his voluntary appearance in court through which the Court acquires jurisdiction over his person.[3]
In view of Corpuz's voluntary appearance, it would be idle technicality to rule on the issue of whether or not service under Sec. 4, Rule 46 of the Rules of Civil Procedure requires actual receipt by the respondent of the notice before such service may be deemed completed and vesting in the court jurisdiction upon the person of the respondent. This petition for review is an appeal from the dismissal of the special civil action filed with the CA in CA-G.R. SP 96278 and is a mere continuance thereof. Under the circumstances, it is just to consider Corpuz's voluntary appearance in this case as retroacting to the special civil action for certiorari filed with the CA so that he is deemed to have also validly submitted himself to the authority and jurisdiction of that court. This case should then be remanded to the CA for disposition of the petition for certiorari.
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to:
(a) REMAND the case to the Court of Appeals;
(b) ORDER the Court of Appeals to REINSTATE the petition for
certiorari in CA-G.R. SP 96278;
(c) REQUIRE petitioner Loyola Memorial Chapels and Crematorium, Inc. to FURNISH respondent Christopher Corpuz, through his counsel, with a copy of the petition in CA-G.R. SP 96278 and to SUBMIT to the Court of Appeals proof of such service, both within 10 days from notice;
(d) REQUIRE respondent Corpuz to FILE a comment to the petition for certiorari within 10 days from receipt of the petition; and
(e) ORDER the Court of Appeals to RESOLVE the petition for certiorari with dispatch.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad and Jose P. Perez, Members, Second Division, this 17th day of February, 2010.
G.R. No. 176522 (Loyola Memorial Chapels and Crematorium, Inc. v. Christopher Corpuz).-
Petitioner Loyola Memorial Chapels and Crematorium, Inc. (Loyola) dismissed respondent Christopher Corpuz from work after finding that he initiated a fight against a co-employee inside the company premises while still on duty. Corpuz filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Loyola. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Corpuz, but on appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission reversed. Since Loyola's motion for reconsideration was denied, Loyola filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed as CA-G.R. SP 96278.
On November 20, 2006, the CA issued a resolution directing Loyola to furnish it with Corpuz's current address since the copy of the resolution it sent on October 6, 2006 to Corpuz at his address on record was returned unserved with the notation "moved out." Loyola manifested it had no information as to the present address of Corpuz. It had also used Corpuz's address on record to furnish him with a copy of the petition that was likewise returned with the notation "RTS moved out."
On December 5, 2006, the CA dismissed the petition for failure of the court to acquire jurisdiction upon the person of Corpuz, pursuant to Sec. 4, Rule 461 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. On January 31, 2007, the CA also dismissed Loyola's motion for reconsideration. Since the December 5, 2006 resolution was returned unserved and Corpuz had not voluntarily submitted to the court's jurisdiction, the CA held that it had no choice but to dismiss the petition since it had not acquired jurisdiction over Corpuz.
Loyola thus filed this Petition for Review, arguing that while Sec. 4, Rule 46 provides the modes by which the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the respondent, it does not categorically state that the failure of respondent to receive such service will be a ground for dismissal of the petition. Jurisdiction attaches to the CA through the service on respondent of its order indicating its initial action on the petition. The act of serving the order upon respondent shall suffice. The right to appeal should not be made to depend on the act or omission of another party to provide notice of his change of address.
Corpuz, represented by his counsel, filed his Comment to the petition. He agrees with the CA that there must be an actual receipt of the order or resolution so that the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the respondent. The service on the respondent contemplated in Sec. 4, Rule 46 is no different from the service of summons in the initial filing of complaints in lower courts. The respondent cannot be considered to have been notified if there was no actual receipt by him of the order or resolution or there was no voluntary appearance before the court. Hence, the court never acquires jurisdiction over him.
On August 17, 2009, the Court dismissed the petition for failure of counsel for petitioner to file a reply to the Comment without justifiable cause in accordance with Sec. 5(e), Rule 56 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. However, upon Loyola's motion for reconsideration, the Court, on November 16, 2009, reinstated the Petition and Comment and noted the attached Reply.
Loyola in its Reply argues that while respondent has the right to be served with all the pleadings filed before the court, he also has the concomitant obligation to provide notice of any change of his address or that of his counsel. Pleadings and service of notices must be made at the addressee's last known address on record unless there is a change of address duly filed.
It should be noted that Loyola and this Court sent Corpuz copies of the petition and this Court's resolutions at his last known address on record, the same address used by the CA and Loyola in serving the petition for certiorari and CA resolutions upon Corpuz. The resolutions of this Court were returned unserved with the notations "RTS-Moved Out." Nevertheless, respondent through his counsel filed a Motion for Additional Time to File Comment (With Formal Entry of Appearance) dated July 10, 2007 and Comment/Opposition dated March 3, 2008. 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.[2] Corpuz's filing of the motion constitutes his voluntary appearance in court through which the Court acquires jurisdiction over his person.[3]
In view of Corpuz's voluntary appearance, it would be idle technicality to rule on the issue of whether or not service under Sec. 4, Rule 46 of the Rules of Civil Procedure requires actual receipt by the respondent of the notice before such service may be deemed completed and vesting in the court jurisdiction upon the person of the respondent. This petition for review is an appeal from the dismissal of the special civil action filed with the CA in CA-G.R. SP 96278 and is a mere continuance thereof. Under the circumstances, it is just to consider Corpuz's voluntary appearance in this case as retroacting to the special civil action for certiorari filed with the CA so that he is deemed to have also validly submitted himself to the authority and jurisdiction of that court. This case should then be remanded to the CA for disposition of the petition for certiorari.
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to:
(a) REMAND the case to the Court of Appeals;
(b) ORDER the Court of Appeals to REINSTATE the petition for
certiorari in CA-G.R. SP 96278;
(c) REQUIRE petitioner Loyola Memorial Chapels and Crematorium, Inc. to FURNISH respondent Christopher Corpuz, through his counsel, with a copy of the petition in CA-G.R. SP 96278 and to SUBMIT to the Court of Appeals proof of such service, both within 10 days from notice;
(d) REQUIRE respondent Corpuz to FILE a comment to the petition for certiorari within 10 days from receipt of the petition; and
(e) ORDER the Court of Appeals to RESOLVE the petition for certiorari with dispatch.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad and Jose P. Perez, Members, Second Division, this 17th day of February, 2010.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] SEC. 4. Jurisdiction over person of respondent, how acquired,- The court shall acquire jurisdiction over the person of the respondent by the service on him of its order or resolution indicating its initial action on the petition or by his voluntary submission to such jurisdiction.
[2] Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited v. Catalan, 483 Phil. 525, 542 (2004).
[3] See 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Rule 14, Sec. 20.
