G.R. No. 152776 ; October 8, 2003
HENRY S. OAMINAL, petitioner, vs. PABLITO M. CASTILLO and GUIA S. CASTILLO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Henry Oaminal filed a complaint for collection against respondents Pablito and Guia Castillo. Summons and the complaint were served upon Ester Fraginal, the secretary of respondent Guia Castillo. Respondents filed an “Urgent Motion to Declare Service of Summons Improper and Legally Defective,” arguing the sheriff’s return failed to comply with the rules on substituted service. The trial court later denied this motion and subsequent motions, eventually declaring respondents in default and rendering a judgment in favor of Oaminal.
Respondents filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, contending the trial court never acquired jurisdiction due to improper service of summons. The CA granted the petition, nullified the trial court’s decision, and dismissed the civil case without prejudice. The CA ruled the sheriff’s return was defective as it did not indicate efforts to effect personal service prior to resorting to substituted service.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the trial court validly acquired jurisdiction over the respondents despite the alleged defect in the service of summons.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s decision. The Court held that the trial court validly acquired jurisdiction over the respondents. First, the respondents admitted the actual receipt of the summons through the secretary but merely questioned the manner of service. This admission is crucial, as the purpose of summons—to notify a party of the action against them—was achieved.
Second, and more decisively, the respondents voluntarily submitted to the court’s jurisdiction by seeking affirmative relief. After filing their motion to declare service improper, they subsequently filed an “Omnibus Motion Ad Cautelam to Admit Motion to Dismiss and Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim,” a “Motion to Dismiss” on grounds of venue and litis pendentia, and an “Answer with Compulsory Counter-Claim.” By asking the court to dismiss the case and rule on their counterclaim, they invoked the court’s authority to grant positive relief. This active participation cures any defect in the service of summons. Jurisdiction over the person can be acquired either through proper service or voluntary appearance, and the latter was unequivocally established by respondents’ conduct. Consequently, the CA erred in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction.