Title
Jorgenetics Swine Improvement Corp. vs. Thick and Thin Agri-Products, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 201044
Decision Date
May 5, 2021
TTAI sued Jorgenetics over unpaid hog-related debts, seeking hogs via replevin; trial court dismissed, appellate court reinstated; Supreme Court upheld appellate ruling, citing voluntary jurisdiction submission.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 219071)

Factual Background (Agreement, Chattel Mortgage, Replevin Complaint)

TTAI supplied feed and other inputs on credit to Jorgenetics for hog‑raising operations. To secure payment of obligations amounting to PHP 20,000,000.00, Jorgenetics executed a chattel mortgage over its hog inventory (4,765 heads). TTAI filed a complaint for replevin with damages seeking immediate possession of the livestock and alternative recovery of the mortgage debt, alleging Jorgenetics failed to pay despite demand.

Trial Court Initial Proceedings and Writ of Replevin (Service, Seizure, Motion to Dismiss)

The complaint was raffled to the RTC and a writ of replevin was issued requiring a bond of PHP 40,000,000.00. The writ was served at petitioner’s farm upon purchasing officer Rowena Almirol, who refused acknowledgment; the return indicated seizure and delivery of the hogs to respondent. Jorgenetics moved to dismiss for invalid service of summons (service at the farm rather than business address in Quezon City; lack of justification for substituted service), and sought quashal of the writ and liability against the replevin bond.

Trial Court Order of Dismissal and Subsequent Motions (February 4, 2010 Order)

The trial court issued an order dated February 4, 2010 dismissing the complaint for replevin for want of jurisdiction over Jorgenetics’ person and ordered the seized properties returned to the defendant. TTAI’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Jorgenetics thereafter filed a Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution with Application for Damages against the replevin bond, asserting it suffered damages from the seizure and pledging to present proof.

Parallel and Subsequent Proceedings (Foreclosure Sale, Application for Damages, Deposit of Auction Proceeds)

While proceedings continued, TTAI commenced extrajudicial foreclosure of the chattel mortgage and became the highest bidder at public auction, with issuance of a certificate of sale in its favor. The trial court (in October 2010) treated the February 4, 2010 dismissal as final and executory, ordered evidence on damages against the replevin bond, and later (January 18, 2011) issued a writ of execution. Jorgenetics sought deposit of the auction proceeds with the court; the trial court ordered deposit and set hearing dates for damages. Motions to quash the writ and other reconsideration motions followed.

CA Ruling in CA G.R. SP. No. 114682 (March 29, 2011 Decision)

The Court of Appeals annulled the trial court’s dismissal order and reinstated TTAI’s complaint for replevin, reasoning that Jorgenetics had voluntarily submitted to the trial court’s jurisdiction by filing affirmative applications (e.g., for damages and writ of execution) and by participating in proceedings inconsistent with an objection to personal jurisdiction. The CA observed the inconsistency between the dismissal and the trial court’s continuance of execution/damages proceedings and held certiorari under Rule 65 was the proper remedy to challenge an order dismissing an action without prejudice. Jorgenetics’ motion for reconsideration in the CA was denied.

Divergent Actions at the RTC (Branch 226 and Conflicting Orders)

Subsequent activity in Branch 226 produced a series of conflicting rulings. Branch 226 initially treated subsequent proceedings as without force after the dismissal and quashed the writ of execution. Later, after administrative re‑raffling and changes in presiding judges, one trial judge (Villacorta) enforced the February 4, 2010 dismissal (citing A.M. No. 07‑7‑12‑SC on interruptions by petitions) and ordered return of the properties to Jorgenetics; that judge inhibited and the case was re‑raffled. Another judge (Ruiz) later ordered reinstatement of the case pursuant to the CA decision but also ordered return of the properties to Jorgenetics. These conflicting orders prompted a second CA certiorari petition in CA G.R. SP. No. 130075.

CA Ruling in CA G.R. SP. No. 130075 (October 29, 2014 Decision)

The Court of Appeals granted TTAI’s certiorari, declared the October 18, 2012 trial court order null and void, set it aside, and affirmed the March 15, 2013 order with modification (deleting the portion invalidating the writ of replevin and ordering return of the hogs). The CA held the trial court had committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to reinstate the complaint following the CA’s earlier decision and in ordering implementation of a void dismissal order, since a void judgment cannot lapse into finality and cannot be executed.

Supreme Court Petitions and TTAI’s Manifestation (May 2, 2017 Trial Court Decision)

Jorgenetics sought review by the Supreme Court of the CA rulings (two consolidated petitions). TTAI later filed a manifestation indicating that on May 2, 2017 the trial court rendered a decision on the merits declaring TTAI the rightful possessor of the hogs and awarding a deficiency judgment of PHP 14,999,980.00 plus interest, fees and costs; TTAI maintained that the finality of that judgment rendered the Supreme Court petitions moot and moved for dismissal.

Issues Framed for Supreme Court Consideration

The Supreme Court distilled the main issues as: (a) whether the petitions were moot in light of the final merits decision; (b) whether Jorgenetics’ petitions should be dismissed for defects in verification and certification of non‑forum shopping; (c) whether the February 4, 2010 dismissal became final and executory after the 15‑day appeal period under Rule 41; (d) whether Jorgenetics’ filing of an application for damages and motion for writ of execution constituted voluntary submission to the trial court’s jurisdiction despite defective service; and (e) whether the return of the hogs seized under the writ of replevin was proper.

Supreme Court’s Analysis on Mootness and Justiciability

The Court held the petitions were not moot. The central question—whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over Jorgenetics or whether the February 4, 2010 dismissal was void—remained live because a ruling in Jorgenetics’ favor would nullify the trial court’s final merits judgment. The Court reiterated that judgments rendered by a tribunal without jurisdiction over the person are null and void, that a void judgment may be attacked at any time, and that voidness prevents finality in the sense that it remains subject to collateral or direct attack. Consequently, the existence of a merits judgment in favor of TTAI did not render the jurisdictional issues moot.

Verification and Certification (Authority of Corporate Officer; Date Variance)

The Court held that the chairperson and president of a corporation may sign verification and certification against forum shopping without need of a prior board resolution; any defect in authority can be cured by subsequent ratification via board resolution. The Court also ruled that a variance between the verification date and the petition filing date is not necessarily fatal if the verification satisfies the Rule’s objective—assurance of good faith and veracity—because the Rules do not demand an exacting ritualistic reading requirement. Thus, Jorgenetics’ verifications were sufficient and the petitions were not dismissed on these procedural grounds.

Proper Remedy: Appeal vs. Special Civil Action (Rule 41 and Rule 65 Distinction)

The Court affirmed that an order dismissing an action without prejudice is not appealable under Rule 41 and must be questioned by an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65. Because the February 4, 2010 dismissal was without prejudice, TTAI’s filing of a Rule 65 petition to assail that dismissal was the correct remedy. Moreover, TTAI’s timely motion for reconsideration and subsequent Rule 65 petition prevented the February 4 order from attaining finality. The Court rejected Jorgenetics’ contention that the dismissal had become final and unassailable before the Rule 65 challenge.

Voluntary Submission to Jurisdiction by Affirmative Acts (Application for Damages and Other Acts)

The Supreme Court endorsed the CA’s finding that Jorgenetics voluntarily submitted to the trial court’s jurisdiction by seeking affirmative relief from the court—specifically by filing an application for damages against the replevin bond and motions incident to execution, and by participating in related proceedings without reserving an objection to jurisdiction. The Court reiterated settled principles: jurisdiction by service of summons is primary, but a defendant who voluntarily appears or seeks affirmative relief is deemed to have submitted to the court’s personal jurisdiction; a conditional or special appearance is the exception but requires an explicit and une

...continue reading

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.

About Privacy Terms