Case Summary (G.R. No. 201044)
Procedural History at Trial
Jorgenetics moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, alleging improper substituted service on its farm purchasing officer. The case was re-raffled; on February 4, 2010, RTC Branch 75 dismissed the complaint without prejudice and ordered the return of the hogs. TTAI’s reconsideration was denied.
First Appellate Proceedings (CA-G.R. SP 114682)
While the dismissal stood, Jorgenetics filed an application for execution and damages on the replevin bond. TTAI then petitioned for certiorari under Rule 65, urging that Jorgenetics’ voluntary participation waived any jurisdictional defect. On March 29, 2011, the CA annulled the dismissal order and reinstated the complaint, finding inconsistent the trial court’s acceptance of Jorgenetics’ damages claim yet dismissal of the replevin suit.
Second Appellate Proceedings (CA-G.R. SP 130075)
At Branch 226, trial judges issued conflicting orders—first enforcing the dismissal and return of hogs, then reinstating the case per the CA decision yet still ordering return. TTAI filed certiorari in CA-G.R. SP 130075. On October 29, 2014, the CA declared the enforcement orders void for grave abuse of discretion and affirmed reinstatement of the replevin complaint without ordering return of the hogs.
Issues Presented
- Mootness in view of final trial-court decision awarding TTAI possession and damages
- Compliance with verification and non-forum-shopping requirements
- Finality of the February 4, 2010 dismissal under Rule 41
- Voluntary submission to jurisdiction by filing execution and damages applications
- Proper disposition of the hogs seized under the replevin writ
Supreme Court’s Ruling on Mootness
The petitions are not moot. A favorable ruling for Jorgenetics would render void the trial-court decision on the merits, as lack of personal jurisdiction nullifies any judgment. A void judgment is no judgment at all and may be challenged at any time.
Verification and Certification Compliance
Mr. Romeo J. Jorge, chairperson and president, validly signed the petitions and verifications under the 1987 Constitution and Rules of Court. Subsequent board ratification cured any doubt. A one-day variance in verification date does not invalidate the petition if good-faith reading is evident.
Proper Remedy for Dismissal Order
An order dismissing without prejudice is not appealable under Section 1(h), Rule 41, and must be assailed by certiorari under Rule 65. TTAI’s Rule 65 petitions in the CA were the correct remedies.
Finality of the Dismissal Order
Because TTAI timely moved to reconsider and filed Rule 65 petitions, the February 4, 2010 order never became final and executory. Enforcement of a non-final dismissal constituted grave abuse of discretion.
Voluntary Submission to Jurisdiction
By filing motions for execution and damages on the replevin bond and other affirmative reliefs, Jorgenetics invoked the trial court’s adjudicatory power, thereby waiving objection to personal jurisdiction. Conditional appearance doctrine did not apply because no clear reservation of jurisdictional o
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 201044)
Procedural History
- Two consolidated petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court (G.R. Nos. 201044 & 222691).
- G.R. No. 201044 assails the CA’s March 29, 2011 Decision and February 29, 2012 Resolution in CA-G.R. SP. No. 114682, which set aside the RTC’s February 4, 2010 dismissal order and reinstated TTAI’s replevin complaint.
- G.R. No. 222691 challenges the CA’s October 29, 2014 Decision and January 8, 2016 Resolution in CA-G.R. SP. No. 130075, which found the RTC in Civil Case No. Q-08-63757 to have acted with grave abuse of discretion in refusing to reinstate TTAI’s complaint and in ordering execution of the February 4, 2010 Order.
Factual Antecedents
- On November 10, 2008, TTAI filed a complaint for replevin with damages against Jorgenetics over 4,765 heads of hogs subject to a chattel mortgage securing a Php20,000,000 obligation.
- TTAI alleged delivery of feeds and supplies on credit, nonpayment by Jorgenetics despite demand, and wrongful withholding of the mortgaged livestock.
- Prayer: issuance of writ of replevin, adjudication of rightful possession to TTAI or, failing that, payment of Php20,000,000 with interest, damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.
Trial Court Proceedings
- Complaint raffled to RTC Quezon City, Branch 92; writ of replevin issued requiring Jorgenetics to post a Php40,000,000 bond.
- Service of the writ and summons made by substituted service on purchasing officer Rowena Almirol at petitioner’s farm; livestock seized and delivered to respondent.
- Jorgenetics moved to dismiss for invalid service of summons and prayed for quashal of the writ and full answerability of the bond.
- After re-raffle to Branch 75, RTC issued February 4, 2010 Order dismissing the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and ordering return of the seized hogs.
- TTAI’s motion for reconsideration denied.
- Jorgenetics then filed a Motion for Writ of Execution with Application for Damages against the replevin bond; RTC set hearing and required TTAI’s comment and petitioner’s reply.
- Trial court ordered presentation of proof of damages, ruling that the February 4, 2010 dismissal had become final and executory, and that petitioner was entitled to damages against the bond.
Court of Appeals Decision on CA-G.R. SP. No. 114682
- On March 29, 2011, CA nullified the February 4, 2010 Order and reinstated TTAI’s