G.R. No. L-62781 August 19, 1988
PAN-ASIATIC TRAVEL CORP., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. AMANTE S. PURISIMA, as Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch VII, CITY SHERIFF OF MANILA, and DESTINATIONS TRAVEL PHIL., INC., respondents.

FACTS

Destinations Travel Phil., Inc. filed a complaint against Pan-Asiatic Travel Corp. for a refund. After Pan-Asiatic challenged jurisdiction via a special appearance motion to dismiss, Destinations filed an amended complaint. Summons for this amended complaint was properly served, and Pan-Asiatic subsequently filed several motions, including for extensions of time and a bill of particulars, thereby voluntarily submitting to the court’s jurisdiction. Destinations then filed a Second Amended Complaint, which introduced new causes of action for commissions and incentives, though the total monetary claim remained unchanged. The trial court admitted this Second Amended Complaint, but no new summons was served on Pan-Asiatic.
Pan-Asiatic was declared in default for failing to answer the Second Amended Complaint, and a judgment by default was rendered. Pan-Asiatic filed an Omnibus Motion to lift the default order and vacate the judgment, arguing lack of jurisdiction due to the absence of new summons for the Second Amended Complaint. The trial court denied this motion. Pan-Asiatic then filed a notice of appeal, which the trial court dismissed as having been filed beyond the reglementary period. The Court of Appeals affirmed this dismissal.

ISSUE

The core issues are: (1) whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over Pan-Asiatic when it rendered the default judgment based on the Second Amended Complaint without new summons; and (2) whether Pan-Asiatic’s appeal was timely filed.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled against Pan-Asiatic on both issues. On jurisdiction, the Court held that no new summons was required for the Second Amended Complaint. Applying the established doctrine from Atkins, Kroll and Co. v. Domingo and Ong Peng v. Custodio, the Court explained that when a defendant has already appeared in an action, the court acquires jurisdiction over his person. Ordinary service of an amended pleading, even one introducing new causes of action, is sufficient to bring that pleading to the defendant’s attention, and no new summons is necessary. Here, Pan-Asiatic had voluntarily appeared by filing multiple motions in response to the first amended complaint. Therefore, service of the Second Amended Complaint without a new summons was valid, and the trial court properly acquired jurisdiction.
On the timeliness of the appeal, the Court held it was filed out of time. The default judgment was received on January 25, 1982. The Omnibus Motion, treated as a motion for new trial, was filed on February 24, 1982, within the 30-day appeal period. Its pendency tolled the running of the period. The motion was denied, and notice of denial was received on April 2, 1982. At that point, only one day of the original appeal period remained. Instead of appealing within that day, Pan-Asiatic filed a motion for reconsideration on April 2, which it later withdrew on April 30 when it finally filed its appeal. The withdrawal rendered the reconsideration motion a nullity, leaving the one-day period unchanged. The appeal filed on April 30 was thus clearly beyond the reglementary period. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.