JORGENETICS SWINE IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION vs. THICK & THIN AGRI-PRODUCTS, INC.

A defendant's filing of an application for damages on a replevin bond and a motion for a writ of execution, without explicitly reserving objections to personal jurisdiction, constitutes voluntary appearance that vests the trial court with jurisdiction over the person. Furthermore, an order dismissing an action without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction is not appealable under Rule 41 but must be challenged via a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, and such an order does not attain finality while the certiorari petition remains pending.

Thick & Thin Agri-Products, Inc. (TTAI) filed a complaint for replevin with damages to recover 4,765 heads of hogs that served as collateral in a chattel mortgage securing a Php20,000,000.00 credit facility for hog feeds and supplies extended to Jorgenetics Swine Improvement Corporation (Jorgenetics). The Regional Trial Court (RTC) issued a writ of replevin, but the sheriff effected substituted service of the summons, writ, and complaint on Jorgenetics' purchasing officer at its farm in Rizal rather than at its registered office in Quezon City. Jorgenetics moved to dismiss the complaint, alleging invalid service of summons, and prayed for the quashal of the writ and the application of its replevin bond to cover alleged damages.

• On November 10, 2008, TTAI initiated a replevin action to secure possession of 4,765 heads of hogs mortgaged as security for unpaid feed and supply obligations totaling Php20,000,000.00. The trial court promptly issued a writ of replevin and required a Php40,000,000.00 bond. Service of the writ, summons, complaint, and TTAI's affidavit was effected through substituted service at Jorgenetics' Rizal farm, delivered to purchasing officer Rowena Almirol, who refused to acknowledge receipt. The sheriff immediately seized the livestock and delivered them to TTAI.
• Jorgenetics moved to dismiss the complaint, alleging that substituted service was unjustified and that the summons was improperly served outside its principal place of business in Quezon City. The trial court granted the motion on February 4, 2010, dismissing the replevin complaint for failure to acquire jurisdiction over Jorgenetics' person and ordering the return of the seized livestock.
• Following the dismissal, Jorgenetics filed a Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Execution with Application for Damages against the replevin bond, claiming wrongful seizure. The trial court set a hearing on the application and directed TTAI to comment. While TTAI pursued extrajudicial foreclosure of the chattel mortgage and acquired a Certificate of Sale, the trial court continued proceedings, eventually ordering Jorgenetics to present evidence on damages and later granting the writ of execution.
• TTAI filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals. The CA nullified the trial court's dismissal order on March 29, 2011, and reinstated the complaint, ruling that Jorgenetics' filing of the damages application constituted voluntary submission to jurisdiction. Subsequent trial court proceedings became fragmented across multiple branches, yielding conflicting orders on whether to enforce the dismissal or comply with the CA's reinstatement directive. TTAI filed a second Rule 65 petition to compel reinstatement, which the CA granted on October 29, 2014. Jorgenetics subsequently elevated both appellate decisions to the Supreme Court.

• Petitioner maintained that the February 4, 2010 order dismissing the complaint attained finality upon the lapse of the 15-day period for ordinary appeal under Rule 41, rendering the trial court's subsequent actions and the CA's reinstatement order legally baseless.
• Petitioner argued that the proper remedy to challenge a dismissal order is an ordinary appeal, and that the trial court retained residual jurisdiction to rule on the application for damages despite the dismissal.
• Petitioner contended that its filing of the motion for execution and damages application did not constitute voluntary submission to jurisdiction, but merely invoked the court's administrative authority to enforce a final order.
• Petitioner asserted that the verification and certification of non-forum shopping were fatally defective due to the absence of a board resolution authorizing its president to sign, and because the notarization date preceded the petition's date.

• Respondent countered that the petitions were moot and academic in light of the trial court's final and executory decision on the merits, which declared TTAI the rightful possessor of the livestock and awarded deficiency damages.
• Respondent argued that the verification and certification were valid because corporate chairpersons and presidents are authorized to sign without a board resolution, and any defect was cured by subsequent ratification.
• Respondent maintained that the February 4, 2010 order was void ab initio for lack of jurisdiction over the person, and that TTAI's timely motion for reconsideration and Rule 65 petition prevented the order from attaining finality.
• Respondent asserted that Jorgenetics voluntarily submitted to the trial court's jurisdiction by seeking affirmative relief through the application for damages on the replevin bond and the motion for execution, thereby waiving any jurisdictional defect.

• Procedural Issues: Whether the consolidated petitions are rendered moot by the trial court's final decision on the merits; whether the petitions should be dismissed for alleged defects in the verification and certification of non-forum shopping; and whether a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to assail an order dismissing an action without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction.
• Substantive Issues: Whether the February 4, 2010 order of dismissal lapsed into finality; whether Jorgenetics' filing of an application for damages on the replevin bond and a motion for execution constitutes voluntary submission to the trial court's jurisdiction; and whether the return of the seized livestock is warranted given the final judgment on the merits.

• Procedural: The Court held that the petitions are not moot because a ruling in petitioner's favor would nullify the trial court's subsequent judgment on the merits for want of jurisdiction, preserving a live justiciable controversy. The Court found the verification and certification substantially compliant, noting that a corporation's chairperson or president may sign without a board resolution, that defects are curable by subsequent ratification, and that a one-day variance between the verification and petition dates is not fatal. The Court ruled that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the exclusive remedy to challenge an order dismissing an action without prejudice, as Rule 41 expressly prohibits ordinary appeals from such orders, thereby preventing the dismissal from attaining finality while the certiorari petition is pending.
• Substantive: The Court found that the February 4, 2010 order did not attain finality due to the timely motion for reconsideration and the pending Rule 65 petition. The Court ruled that Jorgenetics voluntarily submitted to the trial court's jurisdiction by filing an application for damages on the replevin bond and a motion for execution, actions that constitute affirmative relief inconsistent with a claim of lack of personal jurisdiction. Because jurisdiction over the person was properly acquired, the trial court validly proceeded to judgment on the merits, rendering its final decision binding. The Court deemed the issue of returning the seized livestock moot, holding that a writ of replevin is ancillary to the main action and loses its force upon final resolution of the principal case.

• Voluntary Appearance and Submission to Jurisdiction — Jurisdiction over the person of a defendant in civil cases may be acquired through voluntary appearance when a party performs an act inconsistent with the right to object to jurisdiction, such as seeking affirmative relief. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that filing an application for damages on a replevin bond and a motion for execution, without expressly reserving jurisdictional objections, constitutes an invocation of the court's authority and bars subsequent challenges to personal jurisdiction.
• Proper Remedy for Dismissal Without Prejudice — An order dismissing an action without prejudice is unappealable under Rule 41 and must be challenged via a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. The Court relied on this procedural rule to validate the respondent's choice of remedy and to reject the petitioner's claim that the dismissal order had become final and executory.
• Mootness and the Nature of Void Judgments — A void judgment does not attain finality and remains vulnerable to collateral or direct attack at any stage. The Court invoked this principle to conclude that the petitions remained justiciable, as a favorable ruling for the petitioner would invalidate all subsequent proceedings, including the trial court's final judgment on the merits, thereby negating mootness.
• Ancillary Nature of Provisional Writs — Provisional remedies such as writs of replevin are ancillary to the principal action and lose their legal force upon final adjudication of the main case. The Court applied this doctrine to dispense with the issue of returning the seized livestock, noting that the writ's efficacy is subsumed by the final judgment on the merits.

• "A void judgment is in effect no judgment at all, and all acts performed under it and all claims flowing out of it are void. The judgment is vulnerable to attack even when no appeal has been taken, and does not become final in the sense of depriving a party of [their] right to question its validity." — The Court utilized this principle to establish that the trial court's jurisdictional dismissal remained legally vulnerable and did not attain finality while the certiorari petition was pending.
• "[T]he active participation of a party in the proceedings is tantamount to an invocation of the court's jurisdiction and a willingness to abide by the resolution of the case, and will bar said party from later on impugning the court or body's jurisdiction." — This passage forms the doctrinal anchor for the Court's finding that the petitioner's pursuit of affirmative relief constituted voluntary submission to the trial court's authority.
• "An ancillary writ 'cannot survive the main case of which it is an incident because an ancillary writ loses its force and effect after the decision in the main petition.'" — The Court cited this rule to declare the dispute over the return of the seized hogs moot, as the writ of replevin was extinguished by the final judgment on the merits.

• Cagayan Valley Drug Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue — Cited to establish that a corporation's chairperson or president is authorized to sign the verification and certification of non-forum shopping without a board resolution, and that any defect in authority may be cured by subsequent ratification.
• Development Bank of the Philippines v. Carpio — Cited to clarify that a trial court only acquires residual jurisdiction after a trial on the merits, rendition of judgment, and perfection of an appeal, thereby negating the petitioner's argument that the trial court could rule on damages under residual powers following a dismissal without prejudice.
• Pacific Rehouse Corp. v. Court of Appeals — Referenced to support the foundational principle that any judgment or proceeding conducted by a court lacking jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is null and void.

• Section 1, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court — Cited to demonstrate that an order dismissing an action without prejudice is expressly excluded from ordinary appeal, necessitating recourse to Rule 65.
• Rule 65 of the Rules of Court — Invoked as the proper special civil action to correct the trial court's grave abuse of discretion in enforcing a void dismissal order and to reinstate the complaint.
• Section 20, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court — Cited to establish that an application for damages on a bond presupposes a trial on the merits and a favorable judgment, thereby serving as an invocation of the court's jurisdiction.
• Section 20, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court — Referenced to affirm that a defendant's voluntary appearance is equivalent to valid service of summons, subject to the narrow exception of special appearances explicitly challenging personal jurisdiction.