By: Maymay D. Tocalo, August 16, 2018
FACTS:
Victorias Milling Co. (VMC), Inc., filed a complaint for unlawful detainer and damages against respondent IPI before the MCTC. IPI filed its Answer with express reservation that said Answer should not be construed as a waiver of the lack of jurisdiction of the MCTC over the person of IPI, for non-service of summons on the proper person. It then filed an Omnibus Motion for Hearing of Affirmative Defenses raised in the Answer and moved for the suspension of proceedings. The MCTC issued an Order denying the suspension of the proceedings of the case sought by IPI. Thus IPI filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, Cebu City to question the jurisdiction of the MCTC over its person.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Rule on Summary Procedure, by way of exception, permits only a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter but it does not mention the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person.
HELD:
Although it is alleged that there may be a technical error in connection with the service of summons, there is no showing of any substantive injustice that would be caused to IPI so as to call for the disregard of the clear and categorical prohibition of filing petitions for certiorari. It must be pointed out that the Rule on Summary Procedure, by way of exception, permits only a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter but it does not mention the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person. It is a settled rule of statutory construction that the express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of all others. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. From this it can be gleaned that allegations on the matter of lack of jurisdiction over the person by reason of improper service of summons, by itself, without a convincing showing of any resulting substantive injustice, cannot be used to hinder or stop the proceedings before the MCTC in the ejectment suit. With more reason, such ground should not be used to justify the violation of an express prohibition in the rules prohibiting the petition for certiorari.
FACTS:
Victorias Milling Co. (VMC), Inc., filed a complaint for unlawful detainer and damages against respondent IPI before the MCTC. IPI filed its Answer with express reservation that said Answer should not be construed as a waiver of the lack of jurisdiction of the MCTC over the person of IPI, for non-service of summons on the proper person. It then filed an Omnibus Motion for Hearing of Affirmative Defenses raised in the Answer and moved for the suspension of proceedings. The MCTC issued an Order denying the suspension of the proceedings of the case sought by IPI. Thus IPI filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, Cebu City to question the jurisdiction of the MCTC over its person.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Rule on Summary Procedure, by way of exception, permits only a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter but it does not mention the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person.
HELD:
Although it is alleged that there may be a technical error in connection with the service of summons, there is no showing of any substantive injustice that would be caused to IPI so as to call for the disregard of the clear and categorical prohibition of filing petitions for certiorari. It must be pointed out that the Rule on Summary Procedure, by way of exception, permits only a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter but it does not mention the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person. It is a settled rule of statutory construction that the express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of all others. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. From this it can be gleaned that allegations on the matter of lack of jurisdiction over the person by reason of improper service of summons, by itself, without a convincing showing of any resulting substantive injustice, cannot be used to hinder or stop the proceedings before the MCTC in the ejectment suit. With more reason, such ground should not be used to justify the violation of an express prohibition in the rules prohibiting the petition for certiorari.
