GR L 31982; (March, 1979) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-31982 March 14, 1979
CARLOS CORDOVA, petitioner, vs. THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF ILOILO, WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION UNIT, REGIONAL OFFICE NO. VII, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ILOILO CITY, and ROSEMINDA VDA. DE DEJANDO, respondents.
FACTS
Roseminda Vda. de Dejando filed a death compensation claim with the Workmen’s Compensation Unit after her husband, taxi driver Demetrio Dejando, was shot and killed while driving an “Ame” taxi. The claim named Antero Edrosolano and Carlos Cordova as respondents. Summons for the case (WCU No. 12756) was issued and addressed to “Mr. Antero Edrosolano and/or Carlos Cordova c/o Atty. Cirilo Y. Ganzon.” The Workmen’s Compensation Unit proceeded with the case, rendered a decision against both respondents, and later issued a writ of execution.
Petitioner Carlos Cordova claimed he was never served with summons and had no knowledge of the case until he was served with the writ of execution in October 1968. He immediately filed a special appearance and motion for reconsideration, arguing the Unit never acquired jurisdiction over his person due to improper service. His motion was not acted upon, and the Provincial Sheriff levied on his properties for a public auction sale, prompting Cordova to file this petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction.
ISSUE
Whether the Workmen’s Compensation Unit acquired jurisdiction over the person of petitioner Carlos Cordova.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court ruled that the Workmen’s Compensation Unit never acquired jurisdiction over Carlos Cordova. Jurisdiction over the person of a respondent is acquired either through voluntary appearance or through proper service of summons. The record showed that the summons was addressed jointly to Edrosolano and Cordova in care of a specific attorney. Cordova successfully proved he never retained this attorney to represent him in the case and was never personally served with summons. His first participation was the special appearance to question jurisdiction after learning of the writ of execution. This special appearance, made precisely to challenge jurisdiction, cannot be construed as voluntary submission.
The Court found Cordova’s allegations credible and uncontroverted by the respondents. The legal logic is clear: without valid service of summons or voluntary appearance, a tribunal cannot bind a party by its judgment. Since the fundamental requirement of jurisdiction over Cordova’s person was absent, all subsequent proceedings and the resulting decision against him were null and void. The Court set aside the decision insofar as it affected Cordova, nullified the writ of execution against him, and made the restraining order permanent.