In reality, the court can practically proceed with a case without minding
whether or not jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, for example, has
been acquired. However, it has been a long-standing tradition not only in the
Philippines but also in the United States to guarantee that the parties have
actually been made to feel some fear and/or reverence for the turning of the
cogs of justice through what is called service of summons. Moreover, the
constitutional requirement of notice proscribes any situation in which the
parties are not informed of a pending case against them.
When a party receives summons from an officer of the court, it is
traditionally believed that such party has been made to perceive the
seriousness and consequences of the pending legal action and the importance of
participating in the court proceedings. At the same time, such party's right
to due process is respected.
Jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff in civil cases is
acquired by his/her filing of the complaint in court. The act of filing an
action in court in and by itself indicates recognition of the court's legal
power.
On the other hand, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant in
civil cases is acquired by proper and valid service of summons or by voluntary
appearance. Speaking in general terms, the Supreme Court has held:
"Jurisdiction over the persons of the parties is acquired by their voluntary
appearance in court and their submission to its authority, or by the coercive
power of legal process exerted over their persons."[1][2]
In criminal cases, jurisdiction over the person of an accused is acquired upon
either his apprehension, with or without warrant, or his submission to the
jurisdiction of the court.[3]
[1] Banco Español Filipino v. Palanca, 37 Phil. 921.
[2] Perkins v. Dizon 69 Phil. 189.
[3] Infante v. Toledo, 44 Phil. 834; Nilo v. Romero, L-15195, March 29,
1961.