Default Judgments: Voluntary Appearance Cures Defective Summons

In a 2005 Resolution, the Supreme Court addressed a recurring question in Philippine civil procedure: can a defendant who appears in court later challenge a default judgment on the ground of defective summons? The Court's answer serves as a clear reminder that voluntary appearance is equivalent to service of summons, and that a party cannot wait for an adverse judgment before raising jurisdictional objections.

The Case: Gonzales v. Balikatan Kilusang Bayan sa Pananalapi, Inc.

The case arose from a loan obtained by Florentino Gonzales from a cooperative, with four other individuals as co-makers. When Gonzales failed to pay despite demands, the cooperative filed a collection suit in the Municipal Trial Court of Bocaue, Bulacan. Summons were served, and the case was set for hearing on September 29, 2000. The defendants appeared on that date but failed to file their answer. The trial court declared them in default and allowed the plaintiff to present evidence ex-parte.

The trial court ruled in favor of the cooperative, ordering the defendants to pay jointly and severally the principal amount of P128,953.45 with interest, a fine of two percent per month, and attorney's fees. The defendants appealed to the Regional Trial Court, which affirmed the decision. They then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition on technical grounds: the certification of non-forum shopping was not signed by all petitioners, and relevant documents were not attached as required by Rule 42 of the Rules of Court.

The Issues Raised

Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners raised three issues: (1) whether they substantially complied with the certification of non-forum shopping requirement; (2) whether the default judgment was void for lack of jurisdiction over their persons due to defective service of summons; and (3) whether the case should be dismissed for lack of cause of action and jurisdiction.

The Ruling on Non-Forum Shopping

The Court denied the petition. On the first issue, it reiterated the rule that a certification of non-forum shopping must be signed by all petitioners or plaintiffs. The lone signing petitioner could not be presumed to have personal knowledge of whether his co-petitioners had filed any related actions. To merit consideration, petitioners must show a reasonable cause for the failure to personally sign. In this case, they failed to do so, and the Court of Appeals properly dismissed the petition.

Voluntary Appearance Cures Defective Summons

Although the dismissal on technical grounds was sufficient to dispose of the case, the Court went on to resolve the substantive issues "for the proper edification of the parties." The petitioners argued that the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over their persons because summons were not properly served.

The Court rejected this argument. Under Rule 14, Section 20 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, a defendant's voluntary appearance in an action is equivalent to service of summons. Lack of jurisdiction over the person may be waived expressly or impliedly. When a defendant voluntarily appears, he submits to the jurisdiction of the court. If he does not wish to waive this defense, he must raise it seasonably by motion.

The records showed that the petitioners appeared before the trial court on the scheduled hearing, as evidenced by their signatures in the minutes. Their voluntary appearance cured any defect in the service of summons.

Notice of Motion to Declare Default

The petitioners also argued that they were not notified of the motion to declare them in default. The Court noted that Rule 15, Section 2 of the Rules of Court allows motions to be made in open court or during a hearing or trial. Since the motion was made in open court in the petitioners' presence, notice was fairly constituted. The law does not eschew the lack of previous notice of hearing but the lack of opportunity to be heard. The petitioners had that opportunity but failed to contest the motion.

Moreover, the petitioners never moved to lift the order of default. They merely waited for the decision and then questioned it when it was adverse to their interests. The Court emphasized that a defendant cannot speculate on the judgment by objecting to jurisdiction only if the judgment is adverse, while acceding to it if the judgment is favorable.

Practical Takeaways

• Appearances matter. A defendant who appears in court—even without a formal written answer—submits to the court's jurisdiction. Voluntary appearance cures defects in summons.
• Raise jurisdictional objections early. If service of summons is defective, object seasonably by motion. Waiting for an unfavorable judgment before raising the issue is fatal.
• Certifications must be complete. Every petitioner or plaintiff must sign the certification of non-forum shopping. Failure to do so, without a reasonable explanation, warrants dismissal.
• Default orders must be challenged promptly. A party declared in default should move to lift the order immediately, not wait for the final judgment.
• Motions in open court are valid. A motion to declare default made in open court, in the presence of the defendant, satisfies the notice requirement.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.