HONORIO LOPEZ AND CATALINA ZABALA, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, VS. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK AND THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF LEYTE, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

This is an appeal by the
defendants from a decision dated August 10, 1960 of the Court of First Instance
of Leyte in Civil Case No. 2255, the dispositive portion of which reads:

“PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision in Civil Case No. 125
before the Municipal Court of Tacloban City, entitled Philippine National Bank
versus Jorge B. Delgado, Guillermo C. Varona and spouses Honorio Lopez and
Catalina Zabala is declared null and void and of no effect in so far as the
herein plaintiffs are concerned, without special pronouncement as to
costs.”

This case originated in
the Municipal Court of Tacloban City when defendant Philippine National Bank
filed an action for recovery of a sum of money against Jorge B. Delgado,
Guillermo C. Varona and plaintiffs Honorio Lopez and Catalina Zabala and the
same was docketed as Civil Case No. 125.

Sometime in July 1952, a
decision was rendered in said Civil Case No. 125 of the Municipal Court of
Tacloban City, sentencing herein plaintiffs-appellees to jointly and severally
“pay the plaintiff (Philippine National Bank) the amount of P476.40 with
interest of 10% per annum on P422.99 from July 27, 1953, until fully paid,
costs and attorney’s fees due included.”

On October 8, 1952, herein plaintiffs Honorio Lopez and Catalina
Zabala, then defendants in said Civil Case No. 125 of the Municipal Court,
filed a motion to set aside the said decision and the writ of execution issued
on September 18, 1952, on the ground that they have not been properly summoned
of the complaint.

On November 1, 1952, the Municipal Court of Tacloban City issued
an order as follows:

“x x x WHEREFORE, this Court hereby sets aside its decision
with respect to Honorio Lopez and Catalina Zabala and consequently orders the
stay of its execution.

“Let defendants, Honorio Lopez and Catalina Zabala, be
summoned according to ordinary proceedings.”

On September 2, 1954, after about two (2) years, the Philippine
National Bank, plaintiff in said Civil Case No. 125, filed a motion to set the
case for hearing.  The court granted the motion and scheduled
the trial on February 17, 1956.  The
hearing on said date was postponed, upon motion of defendants’ counsel, Atty.
Julio Siayngco, and the case was reset for March 7, 1956.  The scheduled hearing was postponed again for
October 23, 1956, upon motion of Atty. Siayngco, although at the back of the
notice there appeared the information that Honorio Lopez and Catalina Zabala
were not contacted as “according to information of Atty. Julio Siayngco
said persons are now in Manila.”

On October 23, 1956,
Atty. Siayngco filed another motion for postponement.  This was granted by the muni­cipal court,
saying: “Let the hearing of this case be set on a date agreed to by both
parties.” This case was set again for hearing on December 3, 1956 but at
the back of the notice there appeared the following:

“Remark:  The case is
not yet in a condition to be heard for the defendants are not yet
summoned.  Please address to Dangal 32,
River Side, Sub-division, Manila, whatever notification may be issued.  Said St., is according to information the
residence of the defendants.

“Tacloban City, December 2, 1956.

“(SGD.) JULIO SIAYNGCO.”

On December 10, 1956,
after trial, the Municipal Judge rendered a decision, the dispositive part of
which reads:

“WHEREFORE, the defendants are hereby sentenced to pay the
plaintiff jointly and severally the amount of P639.52 plus P64.00 for
attorney’s fees and to pay the costs.”

At
the back of the decision there appeared the annotation by the Chief of Police,
as follows:

“With respect to Atty. Julio Siayngco, same refused to sign
and to receive the copy of this Decision alleging that he never appears for the
defendants during the hearing of this case.”

As a consequence, on August 14, 1957, Honorio Lopez and Catalina
Zabala filed an action against the Philippine National Bank and the Provincial
Sheriff of Leyte for “Anulacion de Sentencia Con Interdicto Prohibitorio
Preliminar” docketed as Civil Case No. 2255 of the Court of First Instance
of Leyte.  At the hearing therein, the
parties did not present evidence but simply submitted the case for decision
with the records of Civil Case No. 125, marked as Exhibit “X”, for
the use of the parties in preparing their respective memoranda.

As stated above, the Court of First Instance rendered a decision
declaring null and void the decision of the Municipal Court of Tacloban City in
Civil Case No. 125 insofar as herein plaintiffs are concerned.  From this judgment, the Philippine National
Bank interposed an appeal before the Court of Appeals, alleging that:

“1.  THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN
DECLARING THAT THE APPELLEES, DEFENDANTS IN CIVIL CASE NO. 125 OF THE JUSTICE
OF THE PEACE COURT OF TACLOBAN, LEYTE, WERE NOT PROPERLY SUMMONED AND HENCE THE
INFERIOR COURT DID NOT ACQUIRE JURIS­DICTION OVER THEIR PERSONS.

“2.  THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN
DECLARING NULL AND VOID THE
DECISION IN CIVIL CASE NO. 125 ENTITLED PNB VS. JORGE B. DELGADO, ET AL WITH
RESPECT TO THE APPELLEES.”

The appellate court, in a
decision, dated July 26, 1971 certified the case to this Court, saying:

“Without going into the merits of the case before us, we find
that the sole issue to be resolved – whether or not Honorio Lopez and Catalina
Zabala were properly summoned (the second issue being a mere corollary thereto)
– involves purely a question of law of which the Supreme Court has the
exclusive appellate jurisdiction under Section 17, Republic Act No. 296 as
amended by Republic Act No. 2613.  And,
the fact that the parties are silent on this point is of no conse­quence and
importance, considering that jurisdiction can neither be conferred nor waived
by parties.”

We find no merit in this
appeal.  It is a fact that upon motion of
plaintiffs-spouses Honorio Lopez and Catalina Zabala, then defendants in Civil
Case No. 125, the first decision rendered by the Municipal Court of Tacloban
City in 1952 was set aside in its order dated November 1, 1952, directing that
said defendants “be summoned according to ordinary proceedings.”
Plaintiff bank, however, after two (2) years, and forgetting the order that
defendants be summoned, moved for the hearing of the case in view of “the
voluntary appearance of said defendants, Honorio Lopez and Catalina Zabala,
through Atty. Julio Siayngco, when they filed their motion to set aside the
decision.” After several postponements, the case was heard again in the
absence of the defendants and another decision was rendered, practically
reviving the first decision condemning them, to pay the Philippine National
Bank.

On the issue as to
whether or not spouses Honorio Lopez and Catalina Zabala were duly summoned, We
hold that said spouses were not duly summoned in the first, as well as
for and in the second hearing, following which the questioned decision was rendered.  When the Philippine National Bank moved for
the hearing of the case on September 2, 1954, defendants Lopez and Zabala have
not yet been summoned.  In fact, Atty.
Siayngco, in moving for the postponement of the hearing, invited the court’ s
attention to that fact.  His
manifestations were in the nature of objections to the jurisdiction of the
court over the persons of the defendants who have not yet been duly
summoned.  Thus, insofar as said spouses
are concerned, the second decision of the inferior court in Civil Case No. 125
is null and void.

ACCORDINGLY, the decision, dated August 10, 1960, in Civil
Case No. 2255 of the Court of First Instance of Leyte is hereby AFFIRMED.  Without costs.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, Acting C.J., Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Vasquez, and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.