GR 159421; (August, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 159421; August 20, 2008
BENEDICTO B. POTENCIANO II, petitioner, vs. GREGORY P. BARNES, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Benedicto B. Potenciano II filed a complaint for damages against respondent Gregory P. Barnes in the Regional Trial Court (RTC). On May 11, 2001, a representative from E. Himan Law Office secured copies of the complaint and summons from the court, indicating on the sheriff’s return that the law office was Barnes’s counsel. Subsequently, Potenciano moved to declare Barnes in default. E. Himan Law Office, through Atty. Jose Valentino G. Dave, filed a special appearance solely to contest the validity of the service of summons, manifesting that it did not represent Barnes as he had not yet engaged its services.
The RTC issued an order of default against Barnes and later rendered a judgment awarding damages to Potenciano. Barnes, now formally represented by a different law firm, moved for a new trial, arguing invalid service of summons. The RTC denied the motion, ruling that the law office’s receipt of the summons constituted voluntary appearance on Barnes’s behalf. Barnes then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person of respondent Barnes through the service of summons.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied Potenciano’s petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over Barnes due to invalid service of summons. Jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired either by valid service of summons or the defendant’s voluntary appearance. Here, the service was defective. The representative from E. Himan Law Office was not the defendant, and the office had no authority to accept summons for Barnes, as it explicitly disclaimed representation at the time. The sheriff failed to personally serve Barnes as required by the Rules of Court.
Furthermore, the actions of E. Himan Law Office did not constitute voluntary appearance by Barnes. A special appearance solely to challenge jurisdiction is not a submission to the court’s authority. The subsequent motion for new trial, which was based precisely on the lack of jurisdiction, could not cure this defect or be construed as a waiver. Consequently, the default order and the judgment rendered by the RTC were null and void for lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals correctly granted the petition for certiorari to afford Barnes due process.