G.R. No. L-18164 January 23, 1967
WILLIAM F. GEMPERLE, plaintiff-appellant, vs. HELEN SCHENKER and PAUL SCHENKER as her husband, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Plaintiff William F. Gemperle filed an action for damages against defendants Helen Schenker and her husband Paul Schenker, a Swiss citizen residing in Zurich, Switzerland. The case arose from allegations that Helen Schenker, acting as attorney-in-fact for her husband, published false and defamatory matters in connection with a prior civil case (Civil Case No. Q-2796) she filed on his behalf against Gemperle. The lower court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction over the person of Paul Schenker and for want of cause of action against Helen Schenker, reasoning that Paul Schenker was beyond the reach of Philippine courts. Gemperle appealed, arguing jurisdiction was acquired through voluntary appearance, as an answer was filed on behalf of both defendants without a special appearance to challenge jurisdiction, and that Helen Schenker, as Paul Schenker’s attorney-in-fact in the prior case, was authorized to represent him.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court acquired jurisdiction over the person of defendant Paul Schenker.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision. Jurisdiction over Paul Schenker was acquired through service of summons upon his wife and attorney-in-fact, Helen Schenker. The Court found that Helen Schenker, as the representative who filed the prior civil case on her husband’s behalf, was empowered to represent him in suits filed against him, particularly in a consequential case like the present one. The answer filed, which included an affirmative defense of lack of jurisdiction, did not constitute a waiver, but the authority derived from her prior representative role was sufficient. Consequently, the premise for dismissing the case against Helen Schenker also failed. The case was remanded to the lower court for further proceedings.