Court of Appeals acquires jurisdiction thru service of order or resolution; voluntary submission
Ignacio and Ignacio Law Offices and Smartnet, petitioners, claim that the Court of Appeals never acquired jurisdiction over their respective persons as they were not served with summons, either by the MeTC or by the appellate court in CA-G.R. SP No. 87104. Thus, they submit that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it included them in the coverage of its injunctive writ.
Jurisdiction is the power or capacity given by the law to a court or tribunal to entertain, hear, and determine certain controversies. Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law.
Section 9 (1) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended, provides: SEC. 9. Jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals shall exercise: (1) Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, governs all cases originally filed with the Court of Appeals. The following provisions of the Rule state: xxx
SEC. 2. To what actions applicable. This Rule shall apply to original actions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and quo warranto.
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.
Records show that on April 27, 2005, petitioners in these two forcible entry cases, were served copies of the Resolution of the Court of Appeals (Seventh Division) dated April 26, 2005 in CA-G.R. SP No. 87104. The Resolution states:
Private respondents SMARTNET PHILIPPINES, INC., IGNACIO & IGNACIO LAW OFFICE, SUNFIRE TRADING, INC., ZOLT CORPORATION, CELLPRIME DISTRIBUTION CORPO., GOODGOLD REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORP., are hereby DIRECTED to file CONSOLIDATED COMMENT on the original Petition for Certiorari, the First Supplemental Petition for Certiorari, and the Second Supplemental Petition for Certiorari (not a Motion to Dismiss) within ten (10) days from receipt of a copy of the original, first and second Petitions for Certiorari.
Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, governs all cases originally filed with the Court of Appeals. The following provisions of the Rule state: xxx
SEC. 2. To what actions applicable. This Rule shall apply to original actions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and quo warranto.
Except as otherwise provided, the actions for annulment of judgment shall be governed by Rule 47, for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus by Rule 65, and for quo warranto by Rule 66. x x x
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.
SEC. 5. Action by the court. The court may dismiss the petition outright with specific reasons for such dismissal or require the respondent to file a comment on the same within ten (10) days from notice. Only pleadings required by the court shall be allowed. All other pleadings and papers may be filed only with leave of court.
It is thus clear that in cases covered by Rule 46, the Court of Appeals acquires jurisdiction over the persons of the respondents by the service upon them of its order or resolution indicating its initial action on the petitions or by their voluntary submission to such jurisdiction. The reason for this is that, aside from the fact that no summons or other coercive process is served on respondents, their response to the petitions will depend on the initial action of the court thereon. Under Section 5, the court may dismiss the petitions outright, hence, no reaction is expected from respondents and under the policy adopted by Rule 46, they are not deemed to have been brought within the courts jurisdiction until after service on them of the dismissal order or resolution.
Records show that on April 27, 2005, petitioners in these two forcible entry cases, were served copies of the Resolution of the Court of Appeals (Seventh Division) dated April 26, 2005 in CA-G.R. SP No. 87104. The Resolution states:
Private respondents SMARTNET PHILIPPINES, INC., IGNACIO & IGNACIO LAW OFFICE, SUNFIRE TRADING, INC., ZOLT CORPORATION, CELLPRIME DISTRIBUTION CORPO., GOODGOLD REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORP., are hereby DIRECTED to file CONSOLIDATED COMMENT on the original Petition for Certiorari, the First Supplemental Petition for Certiorari, and the Second Supplemental Petition for Certiorari (not a Motion to Dismiss) within ten (10) days from receipt of a copy of the original, first and second Petitions for Certiorari.
Pursuant to Rule 46, the Court of Appeals validly acquired jurisdiction over the persons of Ignacio and Ignacio Law Offices and Smartnet upon being served with the above Resolution.
But neither of the parties bothered to file the required comment. Their allegation that they have been deprived of due process is definitely without merit. The Supreme Court has consistently held that when a party was afforded an opportunity to participate in the proceedings but failed to do so, he cannot complain of deprivation of due process for by such failure, he is deemed to have waived or forfeited his right to be heard without violating the constitutional guarantee. (G.R. No. 165849; December 10, 2007)
But neither of the parties bothered to file the required comment. Their allegation that they have been deprived of due process is definitely without merit. The Supreme Court has consistently held that when a party was afforded an opportunity to participate in the proceedings but failed to do so, he cannot complain of deprivation of due process for by such failure, he is deemed to have waived or forfeited his right to be heard without violating the constitutional guarantee. (G.R. No. 165849; December 10, 2007)