Title
People's General Insurance Corp. vs. Guansing
Case
G.R. No. 204759
Decision Date
Nov 14, 2018
A truck accident led to an insurance claim; improper summons service contested, but defendant's voluntary appearance via pleadings upheld jurisdiction, reinstating RTC's ruling.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 204759)

Facts:

  • Accident and Subrogation
    • On February 4, 2006 at around 9:45 a.m., respondent Eduardo Lizaso, driving petitioner People’s General Insurance Corporation’s (PGIC) insured truck owned by Edgardo Guansing along Legarda Street, Sampaloc, Manila, collided with the rear of Andrea Yokohama’s Isuzu Crosswind, causing total loss of the vehicle.
    • Yokohama’s vehicle was insured with PGIC, which paid her ₱907,800.00 under the policy and was subrogated to her rights against Guansing for recovery, less the salvage value of ₱470,000.00.
  • Filing of Complaint and Service Issues
    • On August 28, 2006, PGIC filed a Complaint for sum of money and damages against Guansing and Lizaso before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 41, Manila (Civil Case No. 06-115736).
    • The sheriff’s return of summons dated September 20, 2006 certified service on Guansing “at his given address in Barangay Tibagan, Bustos, Bulacan” via Barangay Kagawad Nestor Reyes but was received by Guansing’s brother, Reynaldo, without any detailed enumeration of personal service attempts or justification for substituted service.
  • RTC Proceedings
    • Guansing filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over person; RTC denied it (Oct. 11, 2006) and likewise denied his motion for reconsideration (Nov. 30, 2006).
    • He filed his one-page Answer (Jan. 28, 2007) denying material allegations and reiterated lack of personal jurisdiction, followed by various motions and a pre-trial brief again raising the jurisdiction issue.
    • PGIC moved to render judgment on the pleadings; RTC granted the motion and in its January 28, 2010 Decision ordered Guansing to pay:
      • ₱437,800.00 plus 12% interest from August 28, 2006 until fully paid;
      • ₱50,000.00 attorney’s fees; and
      • costs of suit.
    • Guansing’s motion for reconsideration was denied (Feb. 23, 2011).
  • Court of Appeals and Supreme Court Petitions
    • Guansing appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which on December 10, 2012 set aside the RTC Decision and Order, ruling that service on his brother was defective and remanding for proper service.
    • PGIC filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court challenging (a) CA’s finding of no jurisdiction by service and (b) its refusal to recognize voluntary appearance by filing an answer and other pleadings.

Issues:

  • Whether the RTC acquired jurisdiction over Edgardo Guansing through the service of summons as shown in the sheriff’s return.
  • Whether Guansing’s filing of an Answer and subsequent pleadings constituted voluntary appearance, thereby curing any defect in service and submitting him to the court’s jurisdiction.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.