03. Paramount Insurance Corporation v.

Maximo Japzon
G.R. No. L-68037, 29 July 1992
Romero, J. / jbsj

Subject Matter: Civil Procedure; Summons

Case Summary: Private respondents were seriously injured in a road mishap between the jeepney they
contracted and a Ford truck. They later filed a criminal case against the truck's driver, and civil case for damages
against the drivers and owners of the vehicles, with Paramount Insurance impleaded as the truck's insurer. A
certain Atty. Segundo Gloria filed a notice of appearance where he informed the court that he was appearing for
and in behalf of the defendants. He also filed an answer with crossclaim and counterclaim. The court declared
the defendants in default because of their continued failure to appear during the trial, and allowed private
respondents to make a formal offer of exhibits and considered the case submitted for decision. The trial court
ruled in favor of private respondents. A year after, Paramount filed a motion to set aside the Decision raising the
issue that the court has not validly acquired jurisdiction over its person. The Supreme Court dismissed the
petition, for petitioner's failure to substantiate its allegation that it was not properly served with summons. Hence,
the disputable presumption that official duty has been regularly performed prevails.

Doctrines:
1. Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant in civil cases is acquired either by his voluntary appearance in
court and his submission to its authority or by service of summons. The service of summons is intended to give
notice to the defendant or respondent that an action has been commenced against it. The defendant or
respondent is thus put on guard as to the demands of the plaintiff or the petitioner.

2. The mere filling of the answer with crossclaim raises a presumption of authority to appear for the party in
accordance with the Rules of Court. Such presumption is rebuttable, but only by clear and positive proof. In the
absence of such clear and positive proof, the presumption of authority should prevail over the party's self-serving
denial of such authority.

Action Before SC: Petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction to review the decision of the
RTC Manila Br. 36.

Parties:
Petitioner Paramount Insurance Corporation

Respondents Judge Maximo Japzon (Regional Trial Court Manila City Br. 36), City Sheriff and Deputy
Sheriffs Nestor Macabilin and Teodoro Episcope, Jose Lara, and Arsenio Paed

Facts:
1. On May 27, 1978, Jose Lara contracted the services of a passenger jeepney owned and operated by Willy
Garcia to transport his family, relatives and friends from Manila to Pangasinan. The jeepney was then driven by
Emilio Macasieb.

2. While cruising along the National Highway in Gerona, Tarlac, a Ford truck owned by Domingo Natividad and
driven by Willy Manuel hit the jeepney when the former overtook an unidentified motor vehicle. Jose Lara and
Arsenio Paed sustained physical injuries of varying degrees: Lara suffered serious physical injuries resulting in
the amputation of his right arm while Paed suffered serious physical injuries which incapacitated him to work for
more than two weeks. Aside from bodily injuries suffered by its passengers, both vehicles suffered minor
damages.

3. Natividad filed a notice of claim against Paramount Surety and Insurance Co. Inc., as the truck's insurer.

4. A check amounting to P800 was paid to Paed's wife, Priscilla Paed. Another check amounting to P5,000 was
paid by Paramount to Central Luzon Doctor's Hospital covering the expense for medical treatment and
hospitalization of the victims, Lara and Paed.
5. Lara and Paed later filed a criminal case against Manuel for Reckless Imprudence resulting in Damage to
Property before the Municipal Trial Court of Gerona, Tarlac. Lara also filed a manifestation reserving the right to
file a separate civil action against Garcia and Natividad as operators of the two vehicles, as well as the two (2)
drivers, Manuel and Macasieb.

6. Lara and Paed later filed a civil case for damages before the Regional Trial Court in Manila against Garcia,
Macasieb, Manuel, Natividad, and impleaded Paramount as the Ford truck's insurer.

7. A certain Atty. Segundo Gloria filed a notice of appearance where he informed the court that he was appearing
for and in behalf of the defendants Natividad, Manuel and Paramount. Subsequently, he filed an answer with
crossclaim and counterclaim.

8. In the interim period, a fire gutted the City Hall of Manila and the records of the case were burned to ashes.
Subsequently, Lara and Paed filed a petition for reconstitution of the judicial records of the case.

9. The following year, the court declared Natividad, Manuel, and Paramount in default because of their continued
failure to appear during the trial, and allowed Lara and Paed to make a formal offer of exhibits and considered
the case submitted for decision.

10. The trial court ruled in Lara's and Paed's favor. A copy of the said decision was served to Atty. Gloria. Since
no appeal from the judgment was filed within the reglementary period, the decision final and executory. Lara and
Paed filed an ex-parte motion for execution of the said judgment and the trial court granted the same.

11. A year after, Paramount filed a petition to the Supreme Court to set aside the Decision raising the issue that
the court has not validly acquired jurisdiction over its person.

Issue: Did court validly acquire jurisdiction over Paramount despite the appearance of Atty. Gloria who allegedly
was not retained or authorized to file an answer for it? [YES]

Holding/Ratio:
1. Jurisdiction is the power with which courts are invested for administering justice, that is, for hearing and
deciding cases. In order for the court to have authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must acquire
jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties.

2. Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant in civil cases is acquired either by his voluntary appearance in
court and his submission to its authority or by service of summons. The service of summons is intended to give
notice to the defendant or respondent that an action has been commenced against it. The defendant or
respondent is thus put on guard as to the demands of the plaintiff or the petitioner.

3. Although Paramount questioned the propriety of the service of summons, it however failed to substantiate its
allegation that it was not properly served with summons. Hence, the disputable presumption that official duty has
been regularly performed prevails. The mere filling of the answer with crossclaim raises a presumption of
authority to appear for petitioner in accordance with the Rules of Court. Such presumption is rebuttable, but only
by clear and positive proof. In the absence of such clear and positive proof, the presumption of authority should
prevail over the petitioner's self-serving denial of such authority.

Petition dismissed.