Voluntary appearance | Summons (RULE 14) | CIVIL PROCEDURE

VOLUNTARY APPEARANCE UNDER THE PHILIPPINE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
(Rule 14, particularly Section 20 under the 2019 Amendments, and related jurisprudence)

1. OVERVIEW

Under Philippine civil procedure, summons is the procedural device by which the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. Generally, a valid service of summons is indispensable before the court can lawfully try and decide a case, unless the defendant voluntarily appears in the action. When a defendant voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of the court, such voluntary appearance is treated as equivalent to service of summons.

The principle of voluntary appearance is embodied in Section 20 of Rule 14 (2019 Amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure), which provides:

Section 20. Voluntary Appearance. – The defendant’s voluntary appearance in the action shall be equivalent to service of summons. The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant shall not be deemed a voluntary appearance.

Hence, by the defendant’s own conduct—be it filing a substantive pleading or requesting affirmative relief—he or she effectively waives any defect in the service of summons or even the lack thereof. The rule ensures that no party can frustrate the speedy administration of justice simply by claiming defective or incomplete summons when that party has already participated in the litigation.

2. GENERAL CONCEPTS

  1. Purpose of Summons. Summons notifies the defendant of the pending suit and allows the court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. Without valid service of summons or voluntary appearance, the court cannot generally proceed to render a binding judgment against that defendant.

  2. Voluntary Appearance as Waiver. Voluntary appearance operates as a waiver of any challenge to the court’s jurisdiction over the defendant’s person. Once a defendant appears and actively participates in the court proceedings (beyond a special appearance to contest jurisdiction), it is as if summons were validly served.

  3. Nature of Voluntary Appearance. “Appearance” can be:

    • General Appearance – The defendant asks the court for relief on the merits or files submissions going beyond challenging jurisdiction.
    • Special Appearance – The defendant appears solely to object to or challenge the court’s jurisdiction over his or her person (e.g., questioning the validity of the service of summons). Under settled doctrine, special appearance to challenge jurisdiction does not amount to voluntary appearance.

3. SCENARIOS CONSTITUTING VOLUNTARY APPEARANCE

A defendant is generally deemed to have voluntarily appeared in (and submitted to) the action in any of the following circumstances:

  1. Filing an Answer or Other Responsive Pleading

    • When a defendant files an Answer addressing the merits—raising defenses, counterclaims, or seeking the court’s relief—this indicates recognition of the court’s authority to hear and decide the case.
    • If the defendant files a pleading in which he or she actively participates in the issues, the court acquires jurisdiction over the defendant’s person by virtue of this submission.

  2. Filing a Motion (Other than a Purely Jurisdictional Challenge)

    • Motion to Dismiss containing grounds unrelated to personal jurisdiction—e.g., improper venue, prescription, failure to state a cause of action, etc. Under Section 20, even if the motion to dismiss includes “lack of jurisdiction over the person,” as soon as it also raises other grounds, that act is deemed voluntary appearance.
    • Motion for Affirmative Relief—for example, a motion for extension of time to file an answer, a motion to lift an order of default (without solely questioning jurisdiction), or a motion for reconsideration on the merits. If these motions ask the court to exercise judicial power beyond merely determining jurisdiction, they signal submission to the court’s authority.

  3. Participation in Court Processes or Proceedings

    • Attending hearings and participating in them without expressly and exclusively objecting to jurisdiction.
    • Entering into stipulations or admissions during pre-trial without limiting appearance to a jurisdictional objection.

In all these instances, the defendant effectively cures any defect in the service of summons or the absence of service.

4. SCENARIOS NOT CONSTITUTING VOLUNTARY APPEARANCE

  1. Special Appearance Challenging Jurisdiction

    • A defendant may appear in court specifically to file a Motion to Dismiss or an Opposition that focuses solely on lack of jurisdiction over the person due to defective or invalid service of summons.
    • The Supreme Court has consistently upheld the right of a defendant to make a limited appearance—often called a “special appearance”—purely to object to jurisdiction, without thereby waiving that objection.
    • The key is that no other defenses or reliefs on the merits are raised and no other steps that imply recognition of the court’s authority are taken.

  2. Inclusion of ‘Other Grounds’ with a Purely Jurisdictional Objection?

    • Under the previous rules, any mention of a defense other than jurisdiction in the same motion often constituted a voluntary appearance.
    • Under the 2019 Amendments, Section 20, Rule 14 clarifies that including other grounds in the same motion to dismiss no longer automatically constitutes voluntary appearance. What matters is whether the defendant expressly seeks any affirmative relief on the merits or otherwise acknowledges the court’s power to decide the controversy. If the motion lumps together a purely jurisdictional challenge with other grounds that do not necessarily go into the merits (e.g., improper venue, lack of legal capacity to sue, etc.), the safer interpretation is that the motion remains a special appearance if it is clear that the defendant is not conceding jurisdiction. Nonetheless, careful drafting is advisable to avoid inadvertently submitting to jurisdiction.

5. LEGAL EFFECTS OF VOLUNTARY APPEARANCE

  1. Cures Defects in Summons

    • Once the court recognizes that a defendant has voluntarily appeared, any issues on defective or invalid service of summons are deemed moot. The court is considered to have acquired jurisdiction over the defendant’s person.

  2. Waiver of Jurisdictional Defense

    • By participating on the merits, the defendant loses the right to contest personal jurisdiction. The chance to object to the jurisdiction over one’s person exists only before a general appearance or any submission to the court’s authority.

  3. Binding Effect of Judgment

    • The defendant who voluntarily appears cannot later attack the ensuing judgment for lack of jurisdiction over his person. The judgment will be valid and enforceable against that defendant.

6. JURISPRUDENCE HIGHLIGHTS

Philippine case law has consistently affirmed:

  1. General Rule: Voluntary appearance = personal jurisdiction.

    • The Supreme Court has reiterated in numerous decisions that “[t]he voluntary appearance of the defendant in an action shall be equivalent to service of summons.” (See PCI Leasing & Finance, Inc. v. Milan, G.R. No. 151215, [2004], among others.)

  2. Exceptions / Special Appearance:

    • The Court has long recognized the defendant’s right to appear solely to assail the court’s jurisdiction. If the defendant’s participation is strictly limited to that challenge, it is not voluntary appearance. (See La Naval Drug Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 236 SCRA 78 [1994], and subsequent rulings.)

  3. Motion Raising Affirmative Relief

    • When the defendant’s motion seeks more than just dismissal on jurisdictional grounds—for example, raising arguments or praying for rulings that address the merits of the complaint—courts treat this as general appearance. (See Riano, Civil Procedure: A Restatement for the Bar, citing relevant decisions.)

  4. 2019 Amendments Clarification

    • The updated Section 20, Rule 14 clarifies that the mere inclusion of other grounds does not automatically amount to voluntary appearance if the motion as a whole signals an intention to maintain a special appearance. The crucial determination is whether the party’s actions are consistent only with challenging jurisdiction or, conversely, consistent with acceding to the court’s authority on substantive matters.

7. PRACTICAL POINTERS FOR LITIGANTS AND COUNSEL

  1. When Objecting to Jurisdiction:

    • Clearly state that the appearance is special and exclusive for the purpose of questioning the court’s jurisdiction over the person.
    • Avoid mixing arguments on the merits or seeking affirmative relief in the same pleading.
    • If other defenses must be raised to avoid waiver (e.g., due to the Omnibus Motion Rule), do so with an express qualification that no submission to jurisdiction is intended.

  2. Drafting Motions to Dismiss:

    • Under the 2019 Amendments, you can include other defenses in the same motion so long as you do not otherwise recognize the court’s authority to decide the merits. However, it is still safer practice to be careful in the language used, making it plain that you appear only to challenge jurisdiction in a consolidated manner, if truly that is the litigant’s stance.

  3. Filing an Answer or Other Pleadings:

    • Once an Answer is filed that does not contest jurisdiction (or a consolidated answer with other defenses but lacks clear language of special appearance), the defendant is generally deemed to have voluntarily submitted to jurisdiction.

  4. Avoiding Unintentional Submission:

    • Even attending pre-trial or participating in mediation, if done without reservation, can be deemed a voluntary appearance. Counsel must be vigilant in signaling to the court and the opposing party if the appearance is exclusively for a jurisdictional objection.

8. SUMMARY

  • Voluntary Appearance stands as a cornerstone principle in Philippine civil procedure. A defendant’s act of participating in the proceedings—such as filing an answer or seeking relief on issues unrelated to jurisdiction—triggers the court’s acquisition of jurisdiction over the person.
  • The key dividing line is between a special appearance (sole purpose: contest personal jurisdiction) and a general appearance (seeking resolution of substantive or procedural issues beyond jurisdiction).
  • Under the 2019 Amendments, the Rules are explicit that including multiple grounds in a motion to dismiss does not automatically mean the defendant has voluntarily appeared. Nonetheless, the ultimate test remains the defendant’s intent and actions—if they suggest a concession to the court’s authority on the merits, then it is voluntary appearance, curing any deficiency in service of summons.
  • The practical lesson is that any party wishing to challenge personal jurisdiction must strictly confine their submissions to contesting jurisdiction alone; otherwise, they risk losing that defense.

In essence, “voluntary appearance” is both a procedural tool for the court to secure jurisdiction over a defendant who actively participates in litigation and a cautionary doctrine for defendants to carefully preserve their jurisdictional defenses. By remembering the nuances of Rule 14, Section 20, and employing special appearance appropriately, litigants and counsel can navigate the fine line between challenging and inadvertently conceding the court’s authority.

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Lawyer Login

 
 
Privacy Policy         Terms of Use         Lawyer Login