WILLIAM F. GEMPERLE, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. HELEN SCHENKER AND PAUL SCHENKER, AS HER HUSBAND, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

Gemperle versus Schenker

The Case

This is an appeal by William Gemperle from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal dismissing his complaint for damages against the spouses Helen Schenker and Paul Schenker. Gemperle sued the Schenkers for libel and damages, alleging that Mrs. Schenker had caused the publication of false and derogatory allegations in connection with a prior corporate suit. The case matters because it teaches when a court acquires jurisdiction over the person of an absent foreign defendant through service of summons upon his wife as his attorney-in-fact, and how a general appearance and a counterclaim affect that question.

Procedural History

Gemperle commenced the action for damages in the Court of First Instance of Rizal. The lower court rendered a decision dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction over the person of Paul Schenker and for want of cause of action against his wife and co-defendant, Helen Schenker, on the ground that Paul Schenker was beyond the reach of Philippine courts and could not be joined as a party defendant. Gemperle moved for reconsideration, which was denied. He then interposed the present appeal to the Supreme Court.

Facts

Sometime in 1952, Paul Schenker, acting through his wife and attorney-in-fact, Helen Schenker, filed a complaint with the Court of First Instance of Rizal against William Gemperle. That complaint sought enforcement of Schenker's alleged initial subscription to shares of stock of the Philippine-Swiss Trading Company, Incorporated, the exercise of his alleged pre-emptive rights to the then unissued original capital stock and the increase thereof, as well as an accounting and damages.

Gemperle alleged that, in connection with that complaint, Mrs. Schenker caused the publication of some of its allegations and other matters that were impertinent, irrelevant, and immaterial to the case, aside from being false and derogatory to his reputation, good name, and credit. He claimed this was done with the only purpose of attacking his honesty, integrity, and reputation and of bringing him into public hatred, discredit, disrepute, and contempt as a man and a businessman.

Gemperle then commenced the present action against the Schenkers for the recovery of 300,000 pesos as damages, 30,000 pesos as attorney's fees, and costs, in addition to praying for a judgment ordering Mrs. Schenker to retract in writing the defamatory expressions. Paul Schenker, a Swiss citizen residing in Zurich, Switzerland, was never actually served with summons in the Philippines, although the summons addressed to him and to Mrs. Schenker was served personally upon her in the Philippines.

Issues

• Whether or not the lower court acquired jurisdiction over the person of Paul Schenker through service of summons upon his wife as his attorney-in-fact.
• Whether or not there is a cause of action against Mrs. Schenker.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory provision; it turns on the rules of civil procedure governing jurisdiction over the person of a defendant, service of summons, and appearance. The controlling principle is that jurisdiction over the person of a defendant is acquired either by valid service of summons upon him or by his voluntary appearance in the action.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the lower court had acquired jurisdiction over Paul Schenker through service of the summons addressed to him upon Mrs. Schenker. It appeared from the answer that she is the representative and attorney-in-fact of her husband in the prior civil case, which was apparently filed at her behest in her representative capacity. In other words, Mrs. Schenker had authority to sue, and had actually sued, on behalf of her husband, so that she was also empowered to represent him in suits filed against him, particularly in a case like the one at bar, which is a consequence of the action brought by her on his behalf.

The Court rejected the argument that jurisdiction was secured through voluntary appearance. Although the answer stated that the defendants, by counsel, were answering the complaint, and although a counterclaim for 225,000 pesos was set up, that counterclaim was set up by Mrs. Schenker alone, not including her husband. Moreover, the answer contained several affirmative defenses, one of which was lack of jurisdiction over the person of Schenker, thus negating the alleged waiver of this defense.

On the second issue, the Court held that the alleged absence of a cause of action against Mrs. Schenker was premised upon the alleged lack of jurisdiction over the person of Paul Schenker. Since that premise could not be sustained, the conclusion drawn from it was likewise untenable.

Doctrine

A court acquires jurisdiction over the person of a defendant either by valid service of summons upon him or by his voluntary appearance. Service of summons upon the wife of an absent foreign defendant is valid and confers jurisdiction over his person where she is his attorney-in-fact and had authority to sue, and had actually sued, on his behalf, because she is thereby empowered to represent him in suits filed against him, particularly one arising as a consequence of the action she brought on his behalf. A general appearance and a counterclaim do not amount to a submission to jurisdiction where the counterclaim is set up by the wife alone and the answer expressly raises lack of jurisdiction over the person of the husband as an affirmative defense.

Disposition

The Supreme Court reversed the decision appealed from and remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings, with costs against the defendants-appellees.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that service of summons upon the wife as attorney-in-fact of an absent foreign defendant confers jurisdiction over his person, because she who may sue on his behalf may also be served for him in suits against him. Examiners like to use this case on the modes of acquiring jurisdiction over the person of a defendant and on when a general appearance or counterclaim amounts to a waiver of the defense of lack of jurisdiction.