THE FILING OF A MOTION TO DISMISS IS NOT AUTOMATICALLY CONSIDERED VOLUNTARY APPEARANCE OR INVOCATION OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT

A special appearance before the court––challenging its jurisdiction over the person through a motion to dismiss even if the movant invokes other grounds––is not tantamount to estoppel or a waiver by the movant of his objection to jurisdiction over his person; and such is not constitutive of a voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court (La Naval Drug Corporation v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 103200, August 31, 1994, 236 SCRA 78). 

In other words, a defendant who files a motion to dismiss, assailing the jurisdiction of the court over his person, together with other grounds raised therein, is not deemed to have appeared voluntarily before the court. What the rule on voluntary appearance means is that the voluntary appearance of the defendant in court is without qualification, in which case he is deemed to have waived his defense of lack of jurisdiction over his person due to improper service of summons. (Garcia v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 170122, October 12, 2009).

In Edna Lhuillier vs. British Airways, the Supreme Court clarified that the special appearance of the counsel of respondent in filing the Motion to Dismiss and other pleadings before the trial court cannot be deemed to be voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the said trial court. The High Court disagreed with the contention of the petitioner and ruled that there was no voluntary appearance before the trial court that could constitute estoppel or a waiver of respondent’s objection to jurisdiction over its person.

“Jurisdictio est potestas de publico introducta cum necessitate juris dicendi” means jurisdiction is a power introduced for the public good, on account of the necessity of dispensing justice. (50 C.J.S. 1089). (EDNA DIAGO LHUILLIER vs. BRITISH AIRWAYS, G.R. No. 171092, March 15, 2010, DEL CASTILLO, J.).