G.R. No. 136415 ; October 31, 2006
VIRGILIO P. CEZAR, petitioner, vs. HON. HELEN RICAFORT-BAUTISTA in her capacity as Presiding Judge of RTC, Branch 260, City of Parañaque and SPECIFIED MATERIALS, CO., respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Specified Materials Corporation filed a complaint for collection of a sum of money against petitioner Virgilio P. Cezar for his failure to pay for construction materials purchased on credit. Summons was served through substituted service on January 9, 1997, delivered to an employee, Mr. Arsenio Robles, at petitioner’s business address. Petitioner failed to file an answer, was declared in default, and a judgment by default was rendered against him. Petitioner later filed a Motion to Set Aside Decision, arguing the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over his person due to invalid substituted service. This motion was denied. Petitioner subsequently filed various petitions and motions before the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, which were dismissed. Notably, after the trial court granted a Motion for Execution of the judgment, petitioner filed an “Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Re-Set Hearing” regarding the motion for execution.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner.

RULING

Yes, the trial court acquired jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that while the substituted service of summons may have been defective, petitioner voluntarily submitted to the court’s jurisdiction through his subsequent actions. Jurisdiction over the person can be acquired either by a valid service of summons or by voluntary appearance. A voluntary appearance is an act by which a party, without expressly objecting to the court’s jurisdiction over his person, submits to its authority. In this case, petitioner’s filing of an “Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Re-Set Hearing” on the motion for execution constituted a voluntary appearance. By filing this motion without expressly objecting to the court’s jurisdiction over his person, petitioner effectively waived any defect in the service of summons and acquiesced to the court’s authority. This principle is well-established: any appearance in court, whether by motion or pleading, that does not specifically challenge jurisdiction over the person, is a submission to that jurisdiction. Consequently, the defect in the initial substituted service was cured, and the trial court validly acquired jurisdiction over petitioner, rendering its decision binding.