In Reicon Realty Builders Corporation v. Diamond Dragon Realty and Management, Inc., the Supreme Court clarified the rules for serving certiorari petitions in the Philippines, emphasizing that service must be made directly to the respondent, not necessarily their counsel, especially in original actions. The Court held that the appellate court erred in dismissing Reicon’s petition for improper service, as the service on the respondent’s declared business address was sufficient. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural rules to ensure due process and the proper acquisition of jurisdiction by the courts.
Navigating Service: When a ‘Special Appearance’ Becomes Voluntary Submission
The case arose from a dispute between Reicon Realty Builders Corporation (Reicon) and Diamond Dragon Realty and Management, Inc. (Diamond) concerning a Contract of Lease. Reicon, as the owner of the property, had leased it to Diamond, who in turn sublet portions to Jollibee Foods Corporation and Maybunga U.K. Enterprises. When Diamond allegedly failed to pay monthly rentals, Reicon terminated the contract and entered into separate agreements with Diamond’s sublessees. Diamond then filed a complaint for breach of contract, leading Reicon to file a motion to dismiss, which was denied by the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Reicon elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a petition for certiorari, which was ultimately dismissed on procedural grounds related to service of the petition.
The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether Reicon’s certiorari petition before the CA was properly served upon Diamond. Sections 3 and 4, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court govern the requirements for filing and serving petitions for certiorari in the Court of Appeals. Section 3 requires the petition to include the full names and addresses of all parties and proof of service on the respondent, while Section 4 stipulates that the court acquires jurisdiction over the respondent through service of its order or resolution or by the respondent’s voluntary submission.
The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to these rules, quoting Section 3 of Rule 46:
SEC. 3. Contents and filing of petition; effect of non-compliance with requirements. – The petition shall contain the full names and actual addresses of all the petitioners and respondents, a concise statement of the matters involved, the factual background of the case, and the grounds relied upon for the relief prayed for.
In actions filed under Rule 65, the petition shall further indicate the material dates showing when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution subject thereof was received, when a motion for new trial or reconsideration, if any, was filed and when notice of the denial thereof was received.
It shall be filed in seven (7) clearly legible copies together with proof of service thereof on the respondent with the original copy intended for the court indicated as such by the petitioner, and shall be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the judgment, order, resolution, or ruling subject thereof, such material portions of the record as are referred to therein, and other documents relevant or pertinent thereto. x x x.
x x x x
The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.
The Court observed that Reicon had indeed provided registry numbers and an affidavit of service, indicating that a copy of the certiorari petition had been served to Diamond at its declared business address. Since Diamond had declared this address in its complaint before the RTC and there was no evidence of a change of address, Reicon’s reliance on it was deemed appropriate.
Building on this principle, the Court highlighted the distinction between original actions like certiorari and ordinary civil cases. In certiorari proceedings, service of the petition upon the respondent themselves is required, as it is an original and independent action, not merely a continuation of the trial. As such, the rule on service upon counsel, as stipulated in Section 2, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, does not apply at this stage:
SEC. 2. Filing and service, defined. – Filing is the act of presenting the pleading or other paper to the clerk of court.
Service is the act of providing a party with a copy of the pleading or paper concerned. If any party has appeared by counsel, service upon him shall be made upon his counsel or one of them, unless service upon the party himself is ordered by the court. Where one counsel appears for several parties, he shall only be entitled to one copy of any paper served upon him by the opposite side.
The Court further noted that even if there were issues with the initial service, Diamond had voluntarily submitted to the CA’s jurisdiction through its counsel’s manifestation seeking the dismissal of the certiorari petition. This action, seeking affirmative relief, was inconsistent with a position of non-submission to the court’s jurisdiction. The Court referenced the case of Philippine Commercial International Bank v. Spouses Dy, elucidating that seeking affirmative relief generally constitutes submission to the court’s jurisdiction.
The Court then explained the concept of ‘special appearance,’ which allows a party to challenge the court’s jurisdiction without submitting to it. However, to be effective, the objection must be explicitly directed at the court’s jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. In this case, Diamond’s objection focused on the alleged error in the service of Reicon’s certiorari petition, not on the CA’s service of its resolution indicating initial action, thus failing to properly challenge the CA’s jurisdiction.
The Court summarized the principles surrounding special appearance and voluntary submission:
|
(1)
|
Special appearance operates as an exception to the general rule on voluntary appearance;
|
|
(2)
|
Accordingly, objections to the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the defendant must be explicitly made, i.e., set forth in an unequivocal manner; and
|
|
(3)
|
Failure to do so constitutes voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court, especially in instances where a pleading or motion seeking affirmative relief is filed and submitted to the court for resolution.
|
Because Diamond sought the dismissal of Reicon’s petition without a proper jurisdictional objection, the Court concluded that Diamond had indeed submitted to the appellate court’s jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court directed the CA to reinstate Reicon’s certiorari petition. To ensure fairness, Reicon was instructed to provide proof of completed service, and Diamond was ordered to update its address and confirm its legal representation.
FAQs
| What was the key issue in this case? | The key issue was whether Reicon’s certiorari petition was properly served on Diamond, and whether Diamond’s actions constituted a voluntary submission to the court’s jurisdiction. The court needed to clarify the requirements for service in original actions like certiorari. |
| Why did the Court of Appeals dismiss Reicon’s petition? | The CA dismissed the petition because it believed Reicon failed to properly serve Diamond, arguing that service should have been made on Diamond’s counsel, not Diamond directly. The CA also cited a lack of proof of service. |
| What did the Supreme Court rule regarding service of the petition? | The Supreme Court ruled that in original actions like certiorari, service must be made on the respondent directly, not necessarily their counsel. Service on the respondent’s declared business address was deemed sufficient. |
| What is a ‘special appearance’ and how does it relate to jurisdiction? | A ‘special appearance’ allows a party to challenge a court’s jurisdiction without submitting to it. However, the objection must be explicitly directed at the court’s jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, and seeking affirmative relief can negate this. |
| How did Diamond’s actions affect the issue of jurisdiction? | Diamond’s counsel filed a manifestation seeking the dismissal of Reicon’s petition, which the Court considered seeking affirmative relief. Because Diamond did not specifically challenge the CA’s jurisdiction, it was deemed to have voluntarily submitted. |
| What is the significance of Rule 46 of the Rules of Court in this case? | Rule 46 outlines the procedures for original actions in the Court of Appeals, including the requirements for service and acquiring jurisdiction over the respondent. The Court relied heavily on this rule to determine the proper course of action. |
| What must Reicon do to proceed with its case? | Reicon must provide proof that the service of its petition had actually been completed in accordance with Rule 13 of the Rules of Court. This includes filing the registry return card or the unclaimed letter with a certified copy of the notice. |
| What must Diamond do following the Supreme Court’s decision? | Diamond must furnish the CA with its current address details and confirm whether Atty. Marqueda will continue to represent it. If Diamond chooses a different counsel, it must notify the appellate court. |
| What was the final outcome of the Supreme Court’s ruling? | The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the CA’s resolutions and directing the CA to reinstate Reicon’s certiorari petition. |
This case serves as a crucial reminder of the nuances of procedural rules in Philippine litigation. The Supreme Court’s emphasis on direct service in certiorari petitions and the careful consideration of what constitutes voluntary submission to a court’s jurisdiction provide valuable guidance for legal practitioners. It ensures a balance between adherence to technical rules and the broader principles of due process and fairness in the administration of justice.
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: Reicon Realty Builders Corporation v. Diamond Dragon Realty and Management, Inc., G.R. No. 204796, February 04, 2015
Leave a Reply