View full case

JORGENETICS SWINE IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION v. THICK

FACTS:

Thick & Thin Agri-Products, Inc. (TTAI) filed a complaint for replevin with damages against Jorgenetics Swine Improvement Corporation (Jorgenetics) seeking possession of 4,765 heads of hogs that were the subject of a chattel mortgage between the parties. Jorgenetics failed to pay for the feeds and supplies, prompting TTAI to file the complaint. The trial court issued a writ of replevin, but Jorgenetics moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of invalid service of summons. The trial court eventually dismissed the complaint due to failure to acquire jurisdiction over Jorgenetics. TTAI's motion for reconsideration was denied. Jorgenetics later filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution with application for damages against the replevin bond. TTAI filed a petition for certiorari questioning the trial court's actions. Meanwhile, TTAI filed a petition for extrajudicial foreclosure of the chattel mortgage and won the bid at public auction.

Jorgenetics filed a complaint for replevin against TTAI to recover certain hogs. The trial court dismissed the complaint and Jorgenetics did not appeal the dismissal. Jorgenetics filed a motion for damages against the replevin bond and a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution. The court ruled that Jorgenetics was entitled to damages, which should be applied against the bond due to the physical impossibility of returning the hogs. TTAI's motion for reconsideration and voluntary inhibition of the judge were denied. The trial court granted Jorgenetics' motion for a writ of execution. TTAI moved to quash the writ of execution, claiming ownership of the hogs through a foreclosure sale. Judge Balut ordered the deposit of the auction proceeds with the court and TTAI filed a motion for reconsideration. Judge Balut eventually inhibited himself. The case was raffled to another judge, who granted TTAI's motion for reconsideration and the motion to quash the writ of execution. Jorgenetics filed a separate petition for a writ of possession, which was dismissed. The trial court denied Jorgenetics' motion for a writ of execution and ordered the reinstatement of the complaint for replevin. Jorgenetics moved for reconsideration, which was granted by another judge. Despite the appellate court's decision nullifying the dismissal order and reinstating TTAI's complaint for replevin, the judge held that the February 4, 2010 order still had effect.

The case involves a dispute over the possession of hogs between TTAI and Jorgenetics. TTAI filed a complaint for replevin, which was initially dismissed by the trial court. TTAI filed a petition for certiorari, but the Court of Appeals did not issue any injunctive relief, allowing the order to lapse into finality. The trial court ordered the return of the hogs to Jorgenetics. TTAI filed a motion for reconsideration and sought the voluntary inhibition of the presiding judge. The case was then re-raffled to another judge, who ordered the reinstatement of the case and the return of the hogs to Jorgenetics. TTAI filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which granted the petition and declared the initial dismissal order as void. Jorgenetics filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. Jorgenetics then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court. TTAI filed a manifestation stating that the trial court rendered a decision in favor of TTAI, declaring it as the rightful possessor of the hogs and ordering Jorgenetics to pay a deficiency judgment. TTAI argued that this rendered the petitions moot and moved for their dismissal.

This case involves petitions filed by Jorgenetics, Inc. challenging the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Civil Case No. Q-08-63757. Before the court could resolve the petitions, the RTC issued a decision on the merits in the said civil case. Respondent Wills International Corporation (Wills) moved for the dismissal of the petitions arguing that they had become moot due to the RTC's decision. Wills also argued that the petitions should be dismissed because Jorgenetics failed to comply with the rules on verification and certification of non-forum shopping. Wills claimed that the verification and certification submitted by Jorgenetics were defective. Furthermore, Wills contended that the February 4, 2010 Order of the RTC had already become final and executory.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the resolution of the Petitions has become moot in view of the decision on the merits in Civil Case No. Q-08-63757;

  2. Whether the Petitions should be dismissed for failure of Jorgenetics to comply with the rules on verification and certification of non-forum shopping;

  3. Whether the February 4, 2010 Order became final and executory upon the lapse of the 15-day period to file an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules of Civil Procedure;

  4. Whether Jorgenetics, in filing an application for damages and motion for issuance of a writ of execution after the trial court's issuance of a decision dismissing the complaint for replevin, may be considered to have submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the trial court;

  5. Whether the return of the hogs seized by virtue of the writ of replevin is proper.

  6. Whether Mr. Jorge is authorized to sign the verification and certification on behalf of Jorgenetics.

  7. Whether the variance in the date of the verification with the date of the Petition is fatal to Jorgenetics' case.

  8. Whether the proper remedy to assail the trial court's order dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction is through an ordinary appeal or a petition for certiorari.

  9. Whether the filing of the Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Execution with Application for Damages amounted to a voluntary submission to the trial court's jurisdiction.

  10. Whether Jorgenetics' request for the trial court to rule on its application for damages constituted an invocation of the court's jurisdiction.

    • Whether the trial court has residual jurisdiction to rule on the application for damages in a replevin case that was dismissed without prejudice

RULING:

  1. The Petitions are denied for lack of merit. The instant Petitions have not been mooted despite the issuance of a decision on the merits in the main case. An issue becomes moot when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy such that a determination thereof would be without practical value. In this case, the main issue is whether the trial court obtained jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner. Therefore, a ruling in favor of the petitioner would result in dismissing the complaint for replevin, nullifying all proceedings conducted and the decision on the merits invoked by the respondent.

  2. Mr. Jorge is sufficiently authorized to sign the verification and certification on behalf of Jorgenetics. The lack of authority of a corporate officer to undertake an action on behalf of the corporation may be cured by ratification through the subsequent issuance of a board resolution, recognizing the validity of the action or the authority of the concerned officer.

  3. The variance in the date of the verification with the date of the Petition is not fatal to Jorgenetics' case. A variance in the date of the verification does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that no verification was made or that the verification was false. As long as efforts were made to satisfy the objective of the Rule, which is to ensure good faith and veracity in the allegations of a pleading, then the verification is considered compliant.

  4. The proper remedy to question the trial court's order dismissing the replevin case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. An order granting a motion to dismiss on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is without prejudice to the refiling of the same action or claim. Therefore, the appellate court correctly ruled that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy in this case.

  5. Yes. Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant in civil cases is acquired by service of summons. However, even without valid service of summons, a court may still acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant if the latter voluntarily appears before it. If the defendant knowingly does an act inconsistent with the right to object to the lack of personal jurisdiction, like voluntarily appearing in the action, they are deemed to have submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the court. In this case, Jorgenetics filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution and an application for damages without objecting to the jurisdiction of the trial court, thereby voluntarily submitting to its jurisdiction.

  6. Yes. Jorgenetics' act of filing an application for damages against the replevin bond in the same action is tantamount to requesting the trial court to conduct a trial on the merits and adjudicate rightful possession to Jorgenetics, followed by a hearing on the application for damages. This constitutes an invocation of the court's jurisdiction and a willingness to abide by the resolution of the case. Therefore, Jorgenetics is deemed to have submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the court.

    • The trial court does not have residual jurisdiction to rule on the application for damages in a replevin case that was dismissed without prejudice. The residual jurisdiction of the trial court is only available after a trial on the merits, the court rendering judgment, and the aggrieved party filing an appeal. In this case, the replevin case was dismissed for improper venue without reaching the residual jurisdiction stage. Without the perfection of an appeal, the trial court did not acquire residual jurisdiction.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A judgment rendered or any proceedings conducted by a court that has no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is null and void;

  • A void judgment is considered no judgment at all, and all acts performed under it and all claims flowing out of it are void;

  • The lack of authority of a corporate officer to undertake an action on behalf of a corporation may be cured by ratification through the subsequent issuance of a board resolution.

  • Corporate officers can sign the verification and certification on behalf of a corporation without the need for a board resolution.

  • Lack of authority of a corporate officer can be cured by ratification through the subsequent issuance of a board resolution.

  • A variance in the date of the verification with the date of the petition is not necessarily fatal as long as efforts were made to satisfy the objective of the Rule, which is to ensure good faith and veracity in the allegations of a pleading.

  • An order dismissing an action without prejudice must be assailed through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, not through an ordinary appeal under Rule 41.

  • Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant in civil cases is acquired by service of summons. However, a defendant may voluntarily submit themselves to the court's jurisdiction even without valid service of summons.

  • A defendant is deemed to have voluntarily submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the court if they seek affirmative relief from the court, such as filing motions or participating actively in the proceedings.

  • The rule on voluntary submission to the court's jurisdiction is tempered by the concept of conditional appearance. A party who makes a special appearance to challenge the court's jurisdiction over their person cannot be considered to have submitted to its authority unless they explicitly and unequivocally pose objections to the court's jurisdiction.

  • Residual jurisdiction is the court's jurisdiction to issue protective orders, approve compromises, permit appeals of indigent litigants, order execution pending appeal, and allow withdrawal of the appeal after the court has lost jurisdiction over the case or subject matter involved in the appeal.

  • A case that is dismissed without prejudice does not bar the refiling of the same action and is not appealable.

  • Ancillary writs, such as the writ of replevin, are not causes of action themselves but are mere adjuncts to the main suit for preserving the status quo until the merits of the case can be heard. They lose their force and effect after a decision is rendered in the main case.

  • Mootness Doctrine: A court will refrain from rendering a decision on a case or controversy if the issue presented has already become academic or moot. The court should only address live controversies or actual cases where the judgment will still have a practical legal effect.