G.R. No. L-61404 March 16, 1987
PARAMOUNT INSURANCE CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. HON. ARTEMON D. LUNA, Presiding Judge, Branch XXXII, CFI, Manila, CITY SHERIFF & DEPUTY SHERIFF SALVADOR DACUMOS, City Hall Arroceros, Manila, and SPS. DRS. DOROTEO & CELESTINA ESPIRITU, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Dr. Doroteo Espiritu filed a complaint for damages against petitioner Paramount Insurance Corporation, as surety, and Romeo Hechanova as principal, based on a performance bond. Petitioner, through counsel, filed an Answer with Cross-claim. Subsequently, the trial court declared Hechanova in default. Petitioner’s counsel then repeatedly failed to appear at scheduled hearings despite due notice. The court issued orders allowing ex-parte presentation of evidence, setting cross-examination dates, and ultimately, after continued absences, declared petitioner to have waived cross-examination and submitted the case for decision. A decision was rendered against the defendants. Petitioner did not appeal, and the judgment became final. A fire later destroyed the court records, but a motion for reconstitution was granted and a writ of execution issued. Petitioner then filed a petition for relief from judgment in another branch, which was dismissed, prompting this certiorari petition.
Petitioner maintains the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over its person due to alleged improper service of summons. It argues the decision is void and can be attacked collaterally even after finality.

RULING

The petition is dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the trial court validly acquired jurisdiction over the petitioner. Jurisdiction over the person is acquired either by voluntary appearance or by coercive process. Here, petitioner voluntarily submitted to the court’s jurisdiction by filing an Answer through its counsel. This act constitutes a voluntary appearance, curing any defect in the service of summons. The Court cited the doctrine that filing an answer seeking affirmative relief is a submission to the court’s authority.
Furthermore, the Court emphasized the presumption that an attorney appearing in court acts with proper authority from the client. Petitioner, by its repeated failures to appear through counsel after having initially appeared, cannot now disclaim the court’s jurisdiction. The subsequent finality of the judgment renders it immutable. A writ of certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal and cannot be used to review errors of judgment, only jurisdictional errors. Since jurisdiction was properly acquired, the assailed decision, having become final, is beyond review. The Court found no merit in petitioner’s claim of a void judgment, as the proceedings, though marked by petitioner’s neglect, were conducted within the court’s jurisdiction.