People's General Insurance Corporation (PGIC) vs.

Edgardo Guansing and

Eduardo Lizaso, G.R. No. 2014759, November 14, 2018
Remedial Law
J. Leonen

FACTS:
Yokohama, owner of a vehicle involved in a collision, filed a total loss claims under its
insurance policy which was paid in full by the insurer as settlement. On the other hand,
the insurer, People's General Insurance Corporation (PGIC), claimed to have been
subrogated to all the rights and interests of the claimant against Guansing — the owner
of the other vehicle involved in the accident.
Despite demands from PGIC, Guansing failed to reimburse the amount claimed. Hence,
PGIC filed a complaint for a sum of money and damages against Guansing and his
driver, Lizaso. The summons was served on Guansing's brother; however, the sheriff's
return did not explain why summons was served on his brother instead of Guansing.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of PGIC. Upon appeal, the Court of
Appeals (CA) set aside the lower court's decision and held that the RTC did not acquire
jurisdiction over Guansing because summons was improperly served.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the person of Guansing on the
grounds of voluntary submission to the court's jurisdiction despite having the summons
being served on his brother instead of him.

RULING:
Yes, the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the person of Guansing because although there
was no proper service of summons, Guansing voluntarily submitted himself to the
court’s jurisdiction by filing his Answer along with the pre-trial brief and pleadings
seeking affirmative reliefs.
On the propriety of the service of summons, the Supreme Court ruled that the service of
summons was defective because the sheriff's return contained no statement on the
efforts or attempts made to personally serve the summons.
To enjoy the presumption of regularity, a sheriff's return must contain: (1) detailed
circumstances surrounding the sheriffs attempt to serve the summons on the defendant;
and (2) the specifics showing impossibility of service within a reasonable time.
Despite the service of summons being defective, the Supreme Court, nevertheless, ruled
that the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the person of Guansing because it has been
consistently held that jurisdiction over a defendant is acquired not only upon a valid
service of summons but also through the defendant's voluntary appearance in court.
In the case at bar, not only did Guansing file his Answer and Pre-trial brief, but he also
filed pleadings seeking affirmative reliefs. A long line of cases has established that the
filing of an Answer, among other pleadings, is considered voluntary appearance and
vests the court with jurisdiction over the person.