This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-04-10 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Despite Agarao's not being a party-respondent, petitioners nevertheless confuse his presence or attendance at the hearing on the application for TRO with the notion of voluntary appearance, which interpretation has a legal nuance as far as jurisdiction is concerned. While it is true that an appearance in whatever form, without explicitly objecting to the jurisdiction of the court over the person, is a submission to the jurisdiction of the court over the person, the appearance must constitute a positive act on the part of the litigant manifesting an intention to submit to the court's jurisdiction.[40] Thus, in the instances where the Court upheld the jurisdiction of the trial court over the person of the defendant, the parties showed the intention to participate or be bound by the proceedings through the filing of a motion, a plea or an answer.[41] | |||||
|
2006-01-20 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Petitioners cannot claim that they were deprived of due process. True, the right to due process safeguards the opportunity to be heard and to submit any evidence one may have in support of his claim or defense. [8] Nonetheless, we have time and again held that where the opportunity to be heard, either through verbal arguments or pleadings, is accorded, and the party can "present its side" or defend its "interest in due course," there is no denial of due process. [9] What the law proscribes is the lack of opportunity to be heard. [10] | |||||