February 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 198567 : February 06, 2012]
ARTURO S. HERRERA v. LIBERTAD TOURIST DEVELOPMENT, INC.
G.R. No. 198567 (Arturo S. Herrera v. Libertad Tourist Development, Inc.).
RESOLUTION
The Court, after a review of the records, resolves to DENY the petition for its failure to show that a reversible error was committed by the Court of Appeals in its Resolutions dated May 4, 2010, June 21, 2010, and August 8, 2011 in CA-G.R. SP 112985. The May 4, 2010 Resolution, which declared the case abandoned and dismissed for failure of the petitioner to file his petition within the 30-day extension he was granted by the court, having Attained finality and entered in the book of entries is now beyond recall.
It must be emphasized that a liberal interpretation and application of the rules of procedure can be resorted to only in proper cases and under justifiable causes and circumstances.[1] There is no showing that petitioner was able to sufficiently show before the appellate court the substantive merits of his case which would warrant the suspension of the strict application of the rules. The bare invocation of "the interest of substantial justice" is not a magic wand that will automatically compel courts to suspend procedural rules.[2]
This Court also finds no merit in the contention of petitioner that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over his person for failure of the substituted service of summons to comply with the requirements laid down by the Rules of Court rendering its decision on the case null and void, and thereby never attaining finality. As found by the trial courts, the substituted service of summons upon petitioner was properly resorted to by the process server. It is clear from the return that efforts were exerted by the process server to effect the service of summons personally upon the petitioner at the given address in the complaint, in substantial compliance with Section 7, Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Court. The return indicates that the summons was received by a certain Juliet de Guzman, who, however refused to acknowledge receipt of the same. As the records disclosed, the said person is the same individual who received respondent's demand letter dated April 9, 2008 and the Regional Trial Court�s (RTC'S) Writ of Execution and Notice to Vacate dated March 18, 2009. Likewise, petitioner never claimed that De Guzman was not under his employ or that she was not an occupant of the subject premises as he only contended that the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) did not acquire over his person as he was not personally served with summons.[3]
Moreover, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, who is the petitioner in this case, is acquired by the court not only through valid service of summons, but also by his voluntary appearance in court and his submission to its authority.[4] Here, petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the decision of the MeTC; appealed its unfavorable decision to the RTC and filed motions for extension of time to file his memorandum before it; and then elevated the case before the Court of Appeals when the RTC affirmed the ruling of the MeTC. Having sought affirmative relief from the courts, he could not now question the court�s jurisdiction over his person as his actions signify that he has acquiesced to the courts' jurisdiction.[5]cralaw
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Asia United Bank v. Goodland Company, Inc., G.R. No. 188051, November 22, 2010, 635 SCRA 637. 644, citing Hon. Fortich v. Hon. Corona, 359 Phil. 210, 220 (1998).[2] Artistica Ceramica, Inc. v. Ciudad Del Carmen Homeowner's Association, Inc., G.R. Nos. 167583-84, June 16, 2010,621 SCRA 22, 35.
[3] December 28, 2009 Decision of the Regional Trial Court in Civil Case M-PSY-08-06237, rollo, pp. 47-48.
[4] Orion Security Corporation v. Kalfam Enterprises, Inc., G.R. No. 163287, April 27, 2007 522 SCRA 617, 622.
[5] Rapid City Realty and Development Corporation v. Villa, G.R. No. 184197, February 11, 2010, 612 SCRA 302, 306, citing Philippine Commercial International Bank v. Spouses Dy Hong Pi, G.R. No. 171137, June 5, 2009, 588 SCRA 612, 629