PAN-ASIATIC TRAVEL CORP., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. AMANTE S.

PURISIMA, as Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch VII, CITY SHERIFF OF MANILA, and DESTINATIONS TRAVEL PHIL., INC., respondents. G.R. No. L-62781 August 19, 1988 FACTS: On March 21, 1980, Destinations Travel Phil., Inc. filed a complaint against PanAsiatic Travel Corp. for the refund of the price of alleged unutilized airplane tickets issued by the latter for passengers recruited by the former, which refund allegedly totalled P48,742.33. DESTINATIONS filed a Motion to Declare Defendant in Default. After receipt of said Motion, PAN-ASIATIC, by way of special appearance, filed a Motion to Dismiss for the sole purpose of objecting to the trial court's jurisdiction over its person on the ground that it was not properly served with summons. Two days after the filing of the Motion to Dismiss, DESTINATIONS filed an amended complaint. At the hearing of said Motion to Dismiss, PANASIATIC was informed of the filing of the amended complaint; hence, it withdrew its Motion to Dismiss. Subsequently, a copy of the amended complaint and summons were served on PAN-ASIATIC. PAN-ASIATIC filed several motions for extension of time within which to file its answer. However, instead of filing an Answer, it filed a Motion for Bill of Particulars which was granted. DESTINATIONS did not file a Bill of Particulars. Instead, it served and filed a Motion to Said Second Amended Complaint which was admitted by the trial judge in an Order dated May 28, 1981, which Order was served on petitioner. On January 4, 1982 the trial court rendered judgment by default against PAN-ASIATIC, which received a copy of the decision on January 25, 1982. On February 24, 1982, petitioner filed its Omnibus Motion to Lift Order of Default and to Vacate Judgment by Default. On July 7, 1982, PAN-ASIATIC filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus before the Court of Appeals which was dismissed. ISSUES: 1. WON THE TRIAL COURT HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF PETITIONER WHEN IT RENDERED THE DECISION OF JANUARY 4, 1982. 2. WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER'S APPEAL IN CIVIL CASE NO. 130608 WAS FILED WITHIN THE REGLEMENTARY PERIOD. HELD: 1. Yes. In the instant case, summons on the first amended complaint was properly served on PAN-ASIATIC. After which, the company filed several motions for extension of time within which to file responsive pleading, and then a Motion for Bill of Particulars, all of which motions were granted by the trial court. With the filing of these motions, PAN-ASIATIC had effectively appeared in the case and voluntarily submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the court. Hence, no new summons on the Second Amended Complaint was necessary, ordinary service being sufficient. Thus, acquiring jurisdiction over the person of petitioner. 2. No. From January 25, 1982 (the date when PAN-ASIATIC received a copy of the Judgment by Default) to February 24, 1982 (the date when the Omnibus Motion was filed) is twenty-nine days. Petitioner therefore had one more day from April 2, 1982 (the day when PAN-ASIATIC received a copy of the Order denying the Omnibus Motion), within which to appeal. Instead of appealing, however, petitioner filed on

the same day, April 2, 1982 a motion for reconsideration of the Order, only to withdraw it on April 30, 1982, as it filed its notice of appeal, appeal bond and record on appeal. Since the motion for reconsideration was withdrawn, then it is as if no motion for reconsideration was ever filed. Thus, the one day remaining period remained unchanged. Clearly, therefore, the appeal interposed on April 30, 1982 was filed out of time.