Anda di halaman 1dari 2

1/20/2016

G.R.No.L18164

TodayisWednesday,January20,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
G.R.No.L18164January23,1967
WILLIAMF.GEMPERLE,plaintiffappellant,
vs.
HELENSCHENKERandPAULSCHENKERasherhusband,defendantsappellees.
Gamboa&Gamboaforplaintiffappellant.
A.R.Narvasafordefendantsappellees.
CONCEPCION,C.J.:
Appeal,takenbyplaintiff,WilliamF.Gemperle,fromadecisionoftheCourtofFirstInstanceofRizaldismissing
this case for lack of jurisdiction over the person of defendant Paul Schenker and for want of cause of action
againsthiswifeandcodefendant,HelenSchenkersaidPaulSchenker"beinginnopositiontobejoinedwithher
aspartydefendant,becauseheisbeyondthereachofthemagistracyofthePhilippinecourts."
The record shows that sometime in 1952, Paul Schenkerhereinafter referred to as Schenker acting through
hiswifeandattorneyinfact,HelenSchenkerhereinafterreferredtoasMrs.SchenkerfiledwiththeCourt
ofFirstInstanceofRizal,acomplaintwhichwasdocketedasCivilCaseNo.Q2796thereofagainstherein
plaintiffWilliamF.Gemperle,fortheenforcementofSchenker'sallegedlyinitialsubscriptiontothesharesofstock
ofthePhilippinesSwissTradingCo.,Inc.andtheexerciseofhisallegedpreemptiverightstothethenunissued
original capital stock of said corporation and the increase thereof, as well as for an accounting and damages.
Alleging that, in connection with said complaint, Mrs. Schenker had caused to be published some allegations
thereofandothermatters,whichwereimpertinent,irrelevantandimmaterialtosaidcaseNo.Q2796,asidefrom
being false and derogatory to the reputation, good name and credit of Gemperle, "with the only purpose of
attacking"his"honesty,integrityandreputation"andofbringinghim"intopublichatred,discredit,disreputeand
contemptasamanandabusinessman",GemperlecommencedthepresentactionagainsttheSchenkersforthe
recoveryofP300,000asdamages,P30,000asattorney'sfees,andcosts,inadditiontoprayingforajudgment
ordering Mrs. Schenker "to retract in writing the said defamatory expressions". In due course, thereafter, the
lower court, rendered the decision above referred to. A reconsiderating thereof having been denied, Gemperle
interposedthepresentappeal.
The first question for determination therein is whether or not the lower court had acquired jurisdiction over the
personofSchenker.Admittedly,he,aSwisscitizen,residinginZurich,Switzerland,hasnotbeenactuallyserved
with summons in the Philippines, although the summons address to him and Mrs. Schenker had been served
personally upon her in the Philippines. It is urged by plaintiff that jurisdiction over the person of Schenker has
beensecuredthroughvoluntaryappearanceonhispart,henothavingmadeaspecialappearancetoassailthe
jurisdictionoverhisperson,andananswerhavingbeenfiledinthiscase,statingthat"thedefendants,bycounsel,
answering the plaintiff's complaint, respectfully aver", which is allegedly a general appearance amounting to a
submission to the jurisdiction of the court, confirmed, according to plaintiff, by a P225,000 counterclaim for
damages set up in said answer but this counterclaim was set up by Mrs. Schenker alone, not including her
husband. Moreover, said 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. Nevertheless, We hold that the
lowercourthadacquiredjurisdictionoversaiddefendant,throughserviceofthesummonsaddressedtohimupon
Mrs.Schenker,itappearingfromsaidanswerthatsheistherepresentativeandattorneyinfactofherhusband
aforementioned civil case No. Q2796, which apparently was filed at her behest, in her aforementioned
representativecapacity.Inotherwords,Mrs.Schenkerhadauthoritytosue,andhadactuallysuedonbehalfof
herhusband,sothatshewas,also,empoweredtorepresenthiminsuitsfiledagainsthim,particularlyinacase,
liketheoftheoneatbar,whichisconsequenceoftheactionbroughtbyheronhisbehalf.
InasmuchastheallegedabsenceofacauseofactionagainstMrs.Schenkerispremisedupontheallegedlackof
jurisdictionoverthepersonofSchenker,whichcannotbesustained,itfollowsthattheconclusiondrawntherefore
fromis,likewise,untenable.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1967/jan1967/gr_l18164_1967.html

1/2

1/20/2016

G.R.No.L18164

Wherefore,thedecisionappealedfromshouldbe,ishereby,reversed,andthecaseremandedtothelowercourt
forproceedings,withthecostsofthisinstancedefendantsappellees.Itissoordered.
Reyes,J.B.L.,Dizon,Regala,Makalintal,Bengzon,J.P.,Zaldivar,SanchezandCastro,JJ.,concur.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1967/jan1967/gr_l18164_1967.html

2/2

Anda mungkin juga menyukai