You are on page 1of 2

BOTICANO vs. CHU, JR.

TOPIC: RULE 14

MARCH 16, 1987


PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI
PETITIONER: ELISEO BOTICANO
RESPONDENT: MANUEL CHU, JR.

P’s truck, driven by Maximo Dalangin, was parked at the shoulder of the national highway in
Nueva Ecija when it was hit and bumped at the rear portion by a truck owned by R and driven
by Jaime Sigua. R agreed with P to shoulder the expenses of the repair of P’s truck. However,
R failed to comply with the agreement and to pay damages for loss of income to P.

PETITIONER COURT RESPONDENT


COMPLAINT FOR CFI NUEVA ECIJA
DAMAGES ISSUED SUMMONS
vs. R and Sigua -returned unserved for Sigua
(served at his last workplace)
-returned duly served on R thru his
wife (served at his house)

MOTION TO DISMISS CFI NUEVA ECIJA


CASE AGAINST SIGUA GRANTED
AND DECLARE R CHU IN
DEFAULT
-R failed to file responsive
pleadings within reg. period

P presented evidence ex-parte DECISION: IN P’S FAVOR


-R liable for P’s fault/negligence
under Art. 2180 NCC

CFI NUEVA ECIJA NOTICE OF APPEAL


GRANTED WITH URGENT MOTION
FOR EXTENSION OF
TIME TO FILE RECORD
ON APPEAL

MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED P’S MOTION Counsel subsequently filed a


APPEAL AND MOTION APPROVED R’S RECORD ON Motion to Withdraw as Counsel
TO EXECUTE JUDGMENT APPEAL on 26 March 1979; New Counsel
entered his appearance on 18
April 1979

CA
RTC JUDGMENT SET ASIDE
REMANDED TO RTC
For proper service of summons and
copy of complaint to R

MR CA
SUPPLEMENTAL MR DENIED
PETITION FOR REVIEW SC
GRANTED
BAUTISTA │ ESTERON │ HIPOLITO │ MANANTAN | RAMIREZ │ PIOQUINTO │ SALES | YAMO 3-EVE
BOTICANO vs. CHU, JR. TOPIC: RULE 14

DISCUSSION:
1. WON the question of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant can be raised for the
first time on appeal –NO
o Jurisprudence: defects in jurisdiction arising from irregularities in the commencement
proceedings, defective process or absence of process may be waived by failure to make
seasonable objections (at the first opportunity)
o Though R was declared in default and thus was not able to participate in the
proceedings and raise the jurisdictional issue, he could have done so in the subsequent
pleadings he filed
o Also, R voluntarily appeared thru counsel in the trial court, in the hearing and through
oral arguments 
 Pleadings filed: Notice of Appeal, Appeal Bond, Motion for Extension of Time
to File Record on Appeal, ecord on Appeal, Motion for Withdrawal of
Appearance, Notice of Appearance, Opposition to Plaintiff’s MTD Appeal
and Issuance of a Writ of Execution
 Section 23, Rule 14, ROC  defendant’s voluntary appearance in the action
shall be equivalent to service
- Defect of summons is cured by the voluntary appearance of the
defendant
2. WON defendant may appeal default judgment rendered by RTC even if he has not asked
the RTC to set aside the declaration of default –YES, but with distinctions on its effects
o Appeal without motion to set aside declaration of default  default declaration set
aside by appellate court : defendant will only get a review of the RTC’s default
judgment without opportunity of having higher court consider defense evidence
o Appeal made after asking to set aside declaration of default  (a) declaration is set
aside : defendant has opportunity to present evidence in the RTC, which will be
considered by higher court; (b) declaration not set aside : defendant entitled to all
notices in court proceedings
o Here, summons was timely issued and received by R
3. WON service of summons on R’s wife at their dwelling house is valid –YES
o Actions must be brought by the real parties in interest and against the persons bound
by the judgment obtained therein
o Partnership (San Pedro Sawmill where R is a partner and Sigua was employee) not a
party to the case
o R estopped to disclaim liabilities

CONCLUSION: (1) Jurisdiction properly acquired by RTC over the person of R thru both service
of summons and voluntary appearance in court, hence, R was properly declared in default for
not filing any answer; (2) R has a right to appeal the default judgment despite not filing a motion
to set aside the declaration of default, but only the evidence of P may be considered in the appeal

BAUTISTA │ ESTERON │ HIPOLITO │ MANANTAN | RAMIREZ │ PIOQUINTO │ SALES | YAMO 3-EVE