GUY vs CA

FACTS:
 The instant controversies arose from a family dispute. Sps Guy (owner of business) in order to protect the assets of
Northern Islands from their son, who has been disposing the assets of the corporation without authority, the Stock
certificates containing 20,160 shares were registered in the names of respondents sisters. (Sps Guy previously incorporated
Lincoln Continental as a holding company of the 50% shares of stock (20,160) of Northern Islands in trust)
 Lincoln Continental filed with the RTC, Manila a Complaint for Annulment of the Transfer of Shares of Stock against
respondents. The complaint basically alleges that Lincoln Continental owns 20,160 shares of stock of Northern Islands; and
that respondents, in order to oust Gilbert from the management of Northern Islands, falsely transferred the said
shares of stock in respondent sisters' names, and that they PRAYED for an award of damages, management of Northern
Islands be restored to Gilbert. TRO and a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to prohibit respondents from exercising
any right of ownership over the shares.
 RTC issued the TRO prayed for by Lincoln Continental directing respondents to restore to Gilbert the shares of stock under
controversy, as well as the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction in a later date (despite the issuance of TRO by CA to
enjoin RTC from further hearing of the Case)
 CA Eighth Division issued a TRO enjoining the implementation of the writ of preliminary injunction; and directing Lincoln
Continental to turn over the assets and records of Northern Islands to respondents.
 Gilbert filed with SC a petition for certiorari, alleging that the Court of Appeals (Eighth Division), in granting an injunctive
relief in favor of respondents, committed grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or in excess of jurisdiction and that
respondents resorted to forum shopping.
 Meanwhile Smartnet and Ignacio Law Offices filed with the MeTC, separate complaint for forcible entry against
respondents. The complaint alleges that respondents forcibly occupied its office space when they took over the
premises of Northern Islands
 On December 22, 2004, the Eighth Division issued the writ of preliminary injunction prayed for by respondents in CA-G.R.
SP No. 87104
 respondents filed with CA 2 Supplemental Petition for Certiorari with Urgent Motion for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction to
Include Supervening Events.
o 1st - Named as additional respondents were 3-D Industries, Judge Laviña, and Sheriff Rabello, Jr. This
supplemental petition alleges that Gilbert, in an attempt to circumvent the injunctive writ issued by the Eighth
Division of the appellatecourt, filed with the RTC, Branch 71, Pasig City a complaint for replevin on behalf of 3-D
Industries, to enable it to take possession of the assets and records of Northern Islands. (a writ of replevin in favor
of 3D industries was issued by RTC but was later reversed by CA)
o 2nd - additional respondents were Ignacio and Ignacio Law Offices, Smartnet, , Presiding Judges of MeTC,, Sun
Fire Trading Incorporated, Zolt Corporation, Cellprime Distribution Corporation, Goodgold Realty and
Development Corporation, John Does and John Doe Corporations. Respondents alleged in the main that the new
corporations impleaded are alter egos of Gilbert; and that the filing of the forcible entry cases with the MeTC was
intended to thwart the execution of the writ of preliminary injunction
 CA admitted the respondent’s new pleading, and rendered its decision reversing and setting aside the Writ of Preliminary
Mandatory Injunction issued by the RTC and made the writ of Preliminary Injunction issued by CA permanent
 Meanwhile, RTC, dismissed the complaint filed by Lincoln Continental and the complaint-in-interventionof Gilbert . The
trial court held that Civil Case No. 04-109444 is a baseless and an unwarranted suit among family members; that based on
the evidence, Gilbert was only entrusted to hold the disputed shares of stock in his name for the benefit of the other family
members; and that it was only when Gilbert started to dispose of the assets of the family's corporations without their
knowledge that respondent sisters caused the registration of the shares in their respective names.
 Both Lincoln Continental and Gilbert timely appealed the RTC Decision to the Court of Appeals,
 Meanwhile
o 3-D Industries, Inc.’s petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with this Court assailing the
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 87104 setting aside the writ of preliminary injunction issued
by the RTC, was DISMISSED
o Gilbert, petitioner in G.R. No. 165849 for certiorari, filed with this Court a Supplemental Petition for Certiorari,
Prohibition, andMandamus with Urgent Application for a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction challenging the
Decision of the Court of Appeals (Seventh Division), dated August 19, 2005, in CA-G.R. SP No. 87104. This
Decision set aside the Order dated October 13, 2004 of the RTC, Branch 46 granting the writ of preliminary
injunction in favor ofLincoln Continental.
 o Ignacio and Ignacio Law Offices and Smartnet filed with this Court their petitions for certiorari, docketed as G.R.
Nos. 170185 and 170186, respectively. Ignacio and Ignacio Law Offices and Smartnet, petitioners, claim that
the Court of Appeals never acquired jurisdiction over their respective persons as they were not served with
summons, either by the MeTC or by the appellate court in CA-G.R. SP No. 87104. Thus, they submit that the
Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it included
them in the coverage of its injunctive writ.
 On February 27, 2006, Lincoln Continental filed with this Court a petition for review on certiorari challenging the
Decision of the Court of Appeals (Seventh Division) inCA-G.R. CV No. 85937, docketed as G.R. No. 171066.
 On March 20, 2006, we ordered the consolidation of G.R. No. 171066 with G.R. Nos. 165849, 170185, and 170186.
 Court of Appeals AFFIRMED the decision of RTC, dismissing Lincoln Continental's complaint and Gilbert's complaint-in-
intervention,
 Lincoln Continental and Gilbert filed their respective motions for reconsideration, but they were denied. Lincoln Continental
then filed with this Court a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals. Both Lincoln
Continental and Gilbert claim that the latter holds legal title to the shares in question.

ISSUE:
whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in ruling that
petitioners Ignacio and Ignacio Law Offices and Smartnet are also covered by its Resolution granting the writ of preliminary
injunction in favor of respondents – NO. CA validly acquired the jurisdiction of the petitioners
HELD:
Jurisdiction is the power or capacity given by the law to a court or tribunal to entertain, hear, and determine certain
controversies. Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law.
Section 9 (1) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended, provides:
SEC. 9. Jurisdiction. — The Court of Appeals shall exercise:
(1) Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus,
and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, governs all cases originally
filed with the Court of Appeals. The following provisions of the Rule state:
SEC. 2. To what actions applicable. — This Rule shall apply to original actions for certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus and quo warranto.
Except as otherwise provided, the actions for annulment of judgment shall be governed by Rule
47, for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus by Rule 65, and forquo warranto by Rule 66.
xxx xxx xxx
SEC. 4. Jurisdiction over person of respondent, how acquired. — The court shall acquire
jurisdiction over the person of the respondent by the service on him of its order or resolution indicating its
initial action on the petition or by his voluntary submission to such jurisdiction.
SEC. 5. Action by the court. — The court may dismiss the petition outright with specific reasons
for such dismissal or require the respondent to file a comment on the same within ten (10) days from
notice. Only pleadings required by the court shall be allowed. All other pleadings and papers may be filed
only with leave of court.
It is thus clear that in cases covered by Rule 46, the Court of Appeals acquires jurisdiction over the persons of the
respondents by the service upon them of its order or resolution indicating its initial action on the petitions or by their
voluntary submission to such jurisdiction. The reason for this is that, aside from the fact that no summons or other coercive
process is served on respondents, their response to the petitions will depend on the initial action of the court thereon. Under
Section 5, the court may dismiss the petitions outright, hence, no reaction is expected from respondents and under the
policy adopted by Rule 46, they are not deemed to have been brought within the court's jurisdiction until after service on
them of the dismissal order or resolution.
 Records show that on April 27, 2005, petitioners in these two forcible entry cases, were served copies of the
Resolution of the Court of Appeals (Seventh Division) dated April 26, 2005 in CA-G.R. SP No. 87104. The Resolution
states:
Private respondents SMARTNET PHILIPPINES, INC., IGNACIO & IGNACIO LAW
OFFICE, SUNFIRE TRADING, INC., ZOLT CORPORATION, CELLPRIME DISTRIBUTION CORPO.,
GOODGOLD REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORP., are hereby DIRECTED to file CONSOLIDATED
COMMENT on the original Petition for Certiorari, the First Supplemental Petition for Certiorari, and the
Second Supplemental Petition for Certiorari (not a Motion to Dismiss) within ten (10) days from receipt of a
copy of the original, first and second Petitions for Certiorari.
Pursuant to Rule 46, the Court of Appeals validly acquired jurisdiction over the persons of Ignacio and
Ignacio Law Offices and Smartnet upon being served with the above Resolution.
But neither of the parties bothered to file the required comment. Their allegation that they have been deprived of
due process is definitely without merit. We have consistently held that when a party was afforded an opportunity to
participate in the proceedings but failed to do so, he cannot complain of deprivation of due process for by such failure, he is
deemed to have waived or forfeited his right to be heard without violating the constitutional guarantee.