You are on page 1of 3

TodayisThursday,March03,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

THIRDDIVISION

G.R.No.L62781August19,1988

PANASIATICTRAVELCORP.,petitioner,
vs.
COURTOFAPPEALS,HON.AMANTES.PURISIMA,asPresidingJudge,CourtofFirstInstanceofManila,
BranchVII,CITYSHERIFFOFMANILA,andDESTINATIONSTRAVELPHIL.,INC.,respondents.

Bengzon,Zarraga,Narciso,Cudala,Pecson,AzcunaandBengsonLawOfficesforpetitioner.

Carmelo,Guerrero,DeSilva&Associatesforprivaterespondent.

CORTES,J.:

On March 21, 1980, Destinations Travel Phil., Inc. (hereafter, DESTINATIONS) filed a complaint against Pan
Asiatic Travel Corp. (hereafter, PANASIATIC) for the refund of the price of alleged unutilized airplane tickets
issuedbythelatterforpassengersrecruitedbytheformer,whichrefundallegedlytotalledP48,742.33.

On June 4, 1980, DESTINATIONS filed a Motion to Declare Defendant in Default. After receipt of said Motion,
PANASIATIC,bywayofspecialappearance,filedaMotiontoDismissforthesolepurposeofobjectingtothetrial
court'sjurisdictionoveritspersononthegroundthatitwasnotproperlyservedwithsummons.Twodaysafterthe
filingoftheMotiontoDismiss,DESTINATIONSfiledonJune25,1980anamendedcomplaintincreasingitsclaim
for reimbursement of refunds to P103,866.35. At the hearing of said Motion to Dismiss, PANASIATIC was
informedofthefilingoftheamendedcomplainthence,itwithdrewitsMotiontoDismiss.

Subsequently,acopyoftheamendedcomplaintandsummonswereservedonPANASIATIC.PANASIATICfiled
severalmotionsforextensionoftimewithinwhichtofileitsanswer.However,insteadoffilinganAnswer,itfileda
MotionforBillofParticularswhichwasgrantedbythetrialcourt.

DESTINATIONS did not file a Bill of Particulars. Instead, on May 9, 1981, it served and filed a Motion to Admit
attached"SecondAmendedComplaint"whichSecondAmendedComplaintdetailedthecausesofaction,towit:

a.Claimforreimbursementofrefunds

forunutilizedtickets(Paragraphs5

and6oftheComplaint)P86,459.85

b.ClaimforcommissionsParagraphs

and8ofthe(Complaint).2,077.33

c.Claimforincentives(Paragraphs9

and10oftheComplaint)5,868.57

d.ClaimforreimbursementParagraphs

1117oftheComplaint).5,868.57

TotalClaims(Paragraph18)..P103,866.35

(Shouldbe.P100,274.32)

SaidSecondAmendedComplaintwasadmittedbythetrialjudgeinanOrderdatedMay28,1981,whichOrder
was served on petitioner on June 9, 1981. However, no new summons was served on petitioner. On July 15,
1981DESTINATIONSfiledaMotiontoDeclareDefendantinDefaultwhichwasgranted.Then,trialwasheldex
parte.OnJanuary4,1982thetrialcourtrenderedjudgmentbydefaultagainstPANASIATIC,whichreceiveda
copyofthedecisiononJanuary25,1982.
On February 24, 1982, petitioner filed its Omnibus Motion to Lift Order of Default and to Vacate Judgment by
Default, alleging that the trial court's decision was rendered without jurisdiction because petitioner was never
servedwithsummonsontheSecondAmendedComplaint,andthatitwasdeprivedofitsdayincourtonaccount
of fraud, accident, mistake and/or excusable negligence. The motion was denied by the trial judge in an Order
datedMarch31,1982.AcopyoftheOrderwasservedonpetitioneronApril2,1982.Onthesamedate,April2,
1982, PANASIATIC filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order of March 31. While the Motion for
Reconsiderationwaspending,petitionerfiledonApril30,1982itsnoticeofappeal,appealbondandrecordon
appeal,andatthesametimewithdrewitsMotionforReconsiderationwhichwithdrawalwasgrantedbythetrial
court.

On May 19, 1982, DESTINATIONS filed a Motion for Execution which the trial court granted on June 15, 1982.
Meanwhile,theappealofPANASIATIC,wasDismissedonthegroundthattheDecisionofJanuary4,1982had
becomefinalandexecutoryandthattheappealwasfiledbeyondthereglementaryperiod.

OnJuly7,1982,PANASIATICfiledapetitionforcertiorariandmandamusbeforetheCourtofAppeals,alleging
that the trial court acted without jurisdiction in dismissing the appeal and in issuing the writ of execution. The
appellate tribunal dismissed the petition. Hence, this present action to which this Court gave due course on
November23,1983.

ThepartiespresentthefollowingissuesforresolutionbytheCourt:

WHETHERORNOTTHETRIALCOURTHADJURISDICTIONOVERTHEPERSONOFPETITIONERWHENIT
RENDEREDTHEDECISIONOFJANUARY4,1982.

II

WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER'S APPEAL IN CIVIL CASE NO. 130608 WAS FILED WITHIN THE
REGLEMENTARYPERIOD.

1. Petitioner contends that the Second Amended Complaint introduced new causes of action not alleged in the
originalnorinthefirstamendedcomplaint.Hence,itisarguedthatnewsummonshadtobeservedonpetitioner,
forthecourttoacquirejurisdictionoverits(petitioner's)person.

TheSecondAmendedComplaintdoesintroducenewcausesofaction.Forwhileinthefirstamendedcomplaint,
DESTINATIONSprayedforreimbursementofrefundsforunutilizedairplaneticketsonly,intheSecondAmended
Complaint, there were claims for commissions and incentives, although the total amount of the claims was the
sameastheamountclaimedinthefirstamendedcomplaint.

ButwasthereneedtoservenewsummonsonPANASIATIC?

Inthe1923caseofAtkins,KrollandCo.v.Domingo,[44Phil.681(1924)],thisCourthadoccasiontolaydown
therulethatifthedefendanthadappearedintheaction,serviceofanamendedcomplaint(whichintroducesa
newcauseofaction)inthesamemannerasanyotherpleadingormotionissufficient,evenifnonewsummons
isserved.ThisrulingwasreiteratedinthecaseofOngPengv.Custodio[G.R.No.L14911,March25,1961,1
SCRA780]inmorecategoricalterms:

Ifhe(defendant)hadnotyetappeared,anewsummonsmustbeserveduponhimasregardsthe
amendedcomplaint,otherwisethecourtwouldhavenopowertotrythenewcausesofactionalleged
therein,unlesshehadlodgedananswerthereto.Simplysendingacopyoftheamendedcomplaint
tothedefendantbyregisteredmailisnotequivalenttoserviceofsummonsinsuchcase.However,if
the defendant had already appeared in response to the first summons, so that he was already in
court when the amended complaint was filed, then ordinary service of that pleading upon him,
personallyorbymail,wouldbesufficient,andnonewsummonsneedbeserveduponhim.

Intheinstantcase,summonsonthefirstamendedcomplaintwasproperlyservedonPANASIATIC.Afterwhich,
the company filed several motions for extension of time within which to file responsive pleading, and then a
MotionforBillofParticulars,allofwhichmotionsweregrantedbythetrialcourt.Withthefilingofthesemotions,
PANASIATIChadeffectivelyappearedinthecaseandvoluntarilysubmitteditselftothejurisdictionofthecourt.
Hence,nonewsummonsontheSecondAmendedComplaintwasnecessary,ordinaryservicebeingsufficient.

In cases where a complaint is amended, the Rules of Court provide for the period within which the defendant
mustanswerthus:

SEC.3.Answertoamendedcomplaint.Ifthecomplaintisamended,thetimefixedforthefilingand
service of the answer shall, unless otherwise ordered, run from notice of the order admitting the
amended complaint. An answer filed before the amendment shall stand as an answer to the
amended complaint, unless a new answer is filed within ten (10) days from notice of service as
hereinprovided.

ThereisnoquestionthatPANASIATICwasproperlyservedwithacopyoftheSecondAmendedComplaintand
thatonJune9,1981,itreceivedacopyoftheOrderadmittingsaidSecondAmendedComplaint.Sinceitfailedto
serve and file its Answer within fifteen (15) days from June 9, 1981, the trial court was correct in declaring the
companyindefault,inholdingtrialexparte,andineventuallyrenderingjudgmentbydefault.

2. Anent the second issue, petitioner contends that its Omnibus Motion to Lift Order of Default and to Vacate
JudgmentbyDefaultisinthenatureofaPetitionforReliefunderRule38.Hence,theOrderdenyingtheOmnibus
Motion which was received by petitioner on April 2, 1982, is itself appealable. PANASIATIC thus argues that it
hadthirty(30)daysfromApril2,1982withinwhichtoappealsaidOrder.Sinceitfileditsnoticeofappeal,appeal
bondandrecordonappealonApril30,1982,then,itisclaimed,theappealwasperfectedontime.

Petitioner's premise is incorrect. The Omnibus Motion to Lift Order of Default and to Vacate Judgment is in the
natureofaMotionforNewTrialunderRule37,andnotaPetitionforReliefunderRule38.

BeitrecalledthatacopyoftheJudgmentbyDefaultwasreceivedbyPANASIATIConJanuary25,1982.The
OmnibusMotionwasfiledonFebruary24,1982,whichwaswithintheperiodtoappeal.Sincethemotionwasfiled
beforethedecisionbecamefinal,itcouldnotbeaPetitionforReliefunderRule38,butaMotionforNewTrial.

...Itisawellknownrulethat(apetitionforreliefunderRule38)maybefiledonlywhentheorderor
judgmentfromwhichitissoughthasalreadybecomefinalandexecutory(Veluzvs.J.P.ofSariaya,
42Phil.557Anuranvs.Aquino,38Phil.29Quirinovs.PNB,101Phil.70554Off.Gaz.[14]4248),
sothataslongasthejudgmentagainstwhichreliefissoughthasnotyetbecomefinal,thepetition
aforesaidisnotavailableasaremedy.Instead,theaggrievedpartymayfileamotionfornewtrial,
underRule37incourtsoffirstinstance,andundersection16,Rule4,ininferiorcourts,inorderthat
the court may correct any errors, mistakes or injustices committed in its judgment. [Punzalan v.
Papica,etal.,107Phil.246(1960).]

SincetheOmnibusMotionisinthenatureofaMotionforNewTrial,theOrderdenyingsaidmotionisNOTitself
appealable.However,thetimeduringwhichthemotionwaspendingmustbedeductedfromthethirtydayappeal
period.Pursuanttosection3,Rule41whichreads:

SEC. 3. How appeal is taken.Appeal may be taken by serving upon the adverse party and filing
with the trial court within thirty (30) days from notice of order or judgment, a notice of appeal, an
appealbond,andarecordonappeal.The time during which a motion to set aside thejudgment or
orderorforanewtrialhasbeenpendingshallbededucted,unlesssuchmotionfailstosatisfythe
requirementsofRule37.

But where such a motion has been filed during office hours of the last day of the period herein
provided, the appeal must be perfected within the day following that in which the party appealing
receivednoticeofthedenialofsaidmotion.

FromJanuary25,1982(thedatewhenPANASIATICreceivedacopyoftheJudgmentbyDefault)toFebruary
24,1982(thedatewhentheOmnibusMotionwasfiled)istwentyninedays.Petitionerthereforehadonemore
dayfromApril2,1982(thedaywhenPANASIATICreceivedacopyoftheOrderdenyingtheOmnibusMotion),
withinwhichtoappeal.Insteadofappealing,however,petitionerfiledonthesameday,April2,1982amotionfor
reconsiderationoftheOrder,onlytowithdrawitonApril30,1982,asitfileditsnoticeofappeal,appealbondand
recordonappeal.

Sincethemotionforreconsiderationwaswithdrawn,thenitisasifnomotionforreconsiderationwaseverfiled.
Thus,theonedayremainingperiodremainedunchanged.Clearly,therefore,theappealinterposedonApril30,
1982wasfiledoutoftime.

WHEREFORE,thepetitionisherebyDISMISSED.Costsagainstthepetitioner.

SOORDERED.

Fernan,C.J.,Gutierrez,Jr.,FelicianoandBidin,JJ.,concur.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

You might also like