The Supreme Court ruled that even if a summons isn’t properly delivered to a defendant, their active involvement in court proceedings can be seen as voluntarily accepting the court’s authority. This means that by participating, they give up the right to claim the court never had power over their case due to faulty summons. This decision highlights the importance of understanding that your actions in court can have significant legal consequences, regardless of initial procedural errors. The court emphasized that such participation indicates a willingness to subject oneself to the court’s jurisdiction.

From Faulty Summons to Full Participation: Did Wong Consent to the Court’s Authority?

The case began with Catherine Factor-Koyama suing Alexander Tam Wong for not finalizing the sale of a condominium unit. Koyama claimed Wong refused to sign the deed and hand over the title after she had already paid for the property. She further alleged that Wong had locked her out of the property, physically assaulted her, and taken her belongings while she was away. The heart of the legal issue, however, wasn’t the property dispute itself, but rather whether Wong was properly notified of the lawsuit against him.

The initial attempt to notify Wong through summons was questionable. A sheriff claimed to have left the summons with Wong’s caretaker after failing to find Wong at home on several attempts. However, Wong argued he never received the summons, and therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction over him. The trial court, however, declared Wong in default for failing to respond to the complaint within the allotted time. Later, Wong tried to dismiss the case, arguing that the summons wasn’t properly served and that he wasn’t informed about Koyama’s motion to declare him in default. This raised a critical question: Can a defendant challenge a court’s jurisdiction based on improper service of summons after actively engaging in the court proceedings?

The Supreme Court acknowledged the irregularities in the initial service of summons. The Court underscored that personal service is preferred, and substituted service is only acceptable when personal service proves impossible. As the Supreme Court explained, substituted service requires proof of diligent effort to find the defendant. Here, the sheriff’s return was insufficient because it didn’t prove that he made sufficient efforts to locate Wong at his office or to verify his presence at other locations before resorting to substituted service. Because the summons was not validly served on Wong, the trial court lacked jurisdiction over him.

“Evidently, the Return failed to relay if sufficient efforts were exerted by Sheriff Baloloy to locate Wong, as well as the impossibility of personal service of summons upon Wong within a reasonable time.”

However, the Court highlighted Wong’s subsequent actions in the case. Even though the service of summons was questionable, the Court noted that Wong actively participated in the proceedings by cross-examining Koyama at a hearing. By actively questioning Koyama during the trial, Wong demonstrated his acknowledgment of the court’s control over his case and voluntarily submitted himself to the court’s authority. Citing Section 20, Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Court, the Court then reasoned that a defendant’s voluntary appearance in an action is equivalent to service of summons. As a result, the Supreme Court declared that the lower court did in fact acquire jurisdiction over the case.

The Court addressed whether the defendant should have been declared in default, in light of his arguments. The Supreme Court stated that considering the trial court had rendered a decision, the issue could be included on appeal to the Court of Appeals.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The primary issue was whether a court acquires jurisdiction over a defendant when the summons was improperly served, but the defendant later participates in the court proceedings.
What is a summons?	A summons is a legal document used to notify a defendant that a legal action has been filed against them, requiring them to respond to the court.
What is personal service?	Personal service involves delivering the summons directly to the defendant, ensuring they have received notice of the lawsuit.
What is substituted service?	Substituted service is when the summons is left with a suitable person at the defendant’s residence or place of business because personal service is not possible.
What constitutes voluntary appearance in court?	Voluntary appearance refers to a defendant’s actions that indicate they are submitting to the court’s jurisdiction, such as filing a motion or participating in hearings.
What happens if a summons is improperly served?	If a summons is improperly served, the court may not initially have jurisdiction over the defendant, and any judgments could be considered invalid unless the defendant voluntarily appears.
How did the defendant participate in court proceedings in this case?	The defendant, Wong, actively participated by cross-examining the plaintiff, Koyama, during a court hearing, which the court deemed as a voluntary submission to jurisdiction.
What was the effect of Wong’s participation?	Wong’s active participation waived his right to challenge the court’s jurisdiction based on the faulty summons.
Did the Supreme Court rule in favor of the defendant?	No, the Supreme Court ruled against the defendant, Wong, holding that his voluntary appearance in court effectively gave the court jurisdiction over him.

This case serves as a reminder that understanding and carefully considering legal proceedings is essential. Even if there are issues with the initial steps of a lawsuit, such as the service of summons, actively participating in court could waive certain rights and subject one to the court’s jurisdiction.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Alexander Tam Wong v. Catherine Factor-Koyama, G.R. No. 183802, September 17, 2009