G.R. No. L-48955, June 30, 1987
Bernardo Busuego, petitioner, vs. Honorable Court of Appeals, Jose Lazaro, Romeo Lazaro and Vivencio Lopez, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Bernardo Busuego filed an action for recovery of possession against respondents Jose Lazaro, Romeo Lazaro, Ernesto Lazaro, and Vivencio Lopez. Summons was served at the address stated in the complaint, with the sheriff’s return indicating personal service “through Dr. Ernesto Lazaro, personally.” Through counsel Atty. Gerardo Roldan, the defendants filed two motions for extension of time to file an answer, both of which were granted by the trial court. Despite these extensions, no answer was filed, leading the court to declare the defendants in default, receive Busuego’s evidence, and render a judgment by default in his favor.
Almost two years later, upon Busuego’s motion for execution, respondent Romeo Lazaro filed a motion to hold execution in abeyance to allow time to vacate, which the court granted. Subsequently, the defendants, through Atty. Roldan, filed a motion for reconsideration of the default judgment, alleging they were not furnished a copy. This was denied. Through new counsel, they then filed an omnibus motion, alleging for the first time that their failure to answer was due to lack of proper notice of the summons. The trial court denied all subsequent motions, holding that the earlier motions for extension and the motion to hold execution in abeyance constituted voluntary appearance. The Court of Appeals granted the petition for certiorari filed by Jose, Romeo, and Vivencio, declaring the default judgment and related orders null and void for lack of jurisdiction over their persons.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the persons of respondents Jose Lazaro, Romeo Lazaro, and Vivencio Lopez.

RULING

No, the trial court did not validly acquire jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. Jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired either by valid service of summons or voluntary appearance. The sheriff’s return stated service was made “through Dr. Ernesto Lazaro, personally.” This did not constitute valid substituted service under the Rules of Court, as the return failed to state that earnest efforts to serve the summons personally upon each defendant within a reasonable time had failed, a mandatory requirement. The return was therefore fatally defective.
Furthermore, the respondents’ actions did not constitute a voluntary appearance that would confer jurisdiction. The two motions for extension of time to file an answer were filed by Atty. Roldan. However, these motions did not contain a specific statement that he was the counsel for, and authorized by, the particular respondents (Jose, Romeo, and Vivencio). The verification by Romeo Lazaro on a later motion for reconsideration, where he claimed to represent “the defendants,” was insufficient to retroactively validate Atty. Roldan’s earlier unauthorized appearance for them. A lawyer’s authority to represent a client cannot be presumed. Since there was no proof that Atty. Roldan was authorized by these three respondents when he filed the motions for extension, those motions could not be deemed a voluntary appearance on their behalf. Consequently, the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over Jose Lazaro, Romeo Lazaro, and Vivencio Lopez, rendering the judgment by default void.