Ramos vs. Mañalac, 89 Phil.

 270

FACTS:
Petition for certiorari was filed seeking for annulment of the decision of the Court of First Instance of
Pangasinan regarding a foreclosed parcel of land. Petitioners question the validity of the CFI (court of first
instance) ruling that they will be held in contempt for refusing to vacate the land. The said property, was
being collateral for a loan to Mr. Rivera, was foreclosed due to non-payment of loan amount and its
interest within the prescribed periods. Mr. Rivera later sold the property to Ms. Lopez, who later filed
petition that she be placed in possession of the land. The petitioners question the ruling of the court.

Issue
Whether the term “appearance” would include only presence in courts.

Held.

No. Granting for the sake of argument that petitioners were not properly served with summons in civil
case No. 7668, as they claim, the defect in the service was cured when the petitioners voluntarily
appeared and answered the complaint thru their attorney of record, Lauro C. Maiquez who appeared in
their behalf in all stages of the case. Since an Attorney Maiquez who appeared for the petitioners must be
presumed to have been authorized by them when he appeared in their behalf in all the stages of the case.
the word or term “appearance” includes not only arguing a case before any such body but also filing a
pleading in behalf of a client as “by simply filing a formal motion, plea or answer”.

Wherefore, the petition is dismissed with costs against the petitioners.