“Your words to your spouse matter, but the tone in which you speak those words matters just as much.”

That famous quote from Dave Willis -- an American voice actor, writer, producer and musician – rings loud and clear in the SC decision that settled the petition of a husband against a Court of Appeals’ (CA) ruling which affirmed that issued by the trial court.

Manila Bulletin – in line with the newspaper’s century-old policy of protecting children and respecting the privacy of individuals -- decided not to mention the true names of the persons involved in the case and opted to use their identities as just “husband” and “wife” since they have minor children when the legal dispute arose.

The SC decision which was written by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando was made public last Oct. 27.

It affirmed the trial court and the CA rulings in 2013 and 2014, respectively, which granted the permanent protection order (PPO) sought by the wife against the husband.

The PPO mandated the husband “to stay away from her wife at a distance of 200 meters and to grant monthly support of P100,000 to the wife and the minor children.”

Case records showed that the couple was married in 1999 and begot two children in 2000 and 2005.

The husband worked overseas as a seafarer with an estimated monthly income of $6,500, while the wife is an employee of a financial institution. The couple had acquired several pieces of real estate properties.

In her petition for PPO, the wife alleged that she and her husband would always quarrel over petty things even during her pregnancy.

At one point, she alleged that her husband kicked her out and their children out of their conjugal home. She also alleged that her husband suddenly barged into her office where she was working and shouted: “Maghiwalay na tayo” (Let us part ways or let us separate)” infront of her officemates.

Also, the wife said her husband abandoned her and their children and deprived them of financial support.

The wife alleged that in February 2012, her husband reduced drastically their financial support from $4,000 to $2,500. Her husband, she said, also stopped visiting their children.

As a result, the wife told the trial court in her petition that she suffered psychological and emotional abuse. She pleaded the court to compel her husband to give her and their children monthly support of P120,000 to be remitted automatically by her husband’s employer.

On Oct. 12, 2012, the trial court issued a temporary protection order (TPO) effective for a period of 30 days from service on the respondent (husband) and deemed automatically renewed every 30 days thereafter until the disposition of this case.

The court’s sheriff made several attempts but failed to serve to the husband copies of the summons, petition, and TPO. When the sheriff attempted to serve the documents to the husband’s employer the sheriff said he was told the husband was deployed abroad.

On Nov. 16, 2012, a lawyer who represented the husband in the latter criminal case for alleged violation of Republic Act No. 9262, the Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act, got copies of the documents supposed to be served to the husband.

On Jan. 17, 2013, the husband filed an entry of appearance with opposition to the issuance of a PPO.

The husband denied humiliating his wife in public. He also told the trial court he has been a good provider for his family, has sent his children to good schools, and her wife remained as allottee of his salaries.

On Jan. 25, 2013, the trial court denied the husband’s opposition to PPO which the court said was belatedly filed two months after the issuance of the TPO. On Jan. 30, 2013, the TPO was converted to PPO by the trial court with a ruling that the wife was subjected to psychological and emotional abuse, as well as deprivation of financial support.

The husband elevated the case to the CA. He told the CA his wife failed to prove the necessity of a PPO and the amount of support, and there was improper service of summons since he was abroad from Aug. 7, 2012 to Jan. 5, 2013.

On May 29, 2014, the CA denied the husband’s petition. It ruled that there was no improper service of summons since the notice received by counsel representing a party in an action in court is equivalent to notice to the party himself.

Discontented, the husband elevated the case to the SC. In resolving the issue, the SC said:

“Clearly, jurisdiction over the person of the respondent in a petition for TPO/PPO under RA 9262 can be acquired through any of the means of serving summons under the Rules of Court.

“In an action in personam (against a person) such as a petition for TPO/PPO under RA 9262, the purpose of summons is two-fold: (1) to notify the defendant that an action has been brought against him; and (2) to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.

“When the defendant does not voluntarily submit to the court's jurisdiction or when there is no valid service of summons, any judgment of the court which has no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is null and void.

“In the case at bar, the sheriff attempted to personally serve the summons, petition, and TPO in (the husband’s) residence and place of employment as per the Sheriffs return....

“Granting arguendo that (the husband) knew of the pending TPO case against him, whether through (the lawyer) or another person, the requirement of summons cannot be dispensed with. Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant cannot be acquired notwithstanding his knowledge of the pendency of a case against him, unless he was validly served with summons.

“However, We note that (the husband) voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the trial court when he filed the Entry of Appearance with Opposition to the Issuance of the Permanent Protection Order on January 17, 2013.

“By seeking affirmative relief in his opposition without objecting to the jurisdiction of the trial court, he thereby voluntarily submitted to its jurisdiction.

“In effect, this cured the invalid service of summons. In a catena of cases, this Court has ruled that voluntary appearance by the defendant results to his submission to the court's jurisdiction.

“Clearly, the trial court acquired jurisdiction over (the husband) through his voluntary appearance when he sought the lifting of the TPO and the denial of the issuance of PPO in his opposition, without raising the issue of lack of jurisdiction over his person. By such conduct, he can no longer subsequently object to the court's jurisdiction.

“WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed May 29, 2014 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 100631, affirming the January 30, 2013 Decision and Permanent Protection Order of the Regional Trial court ... in Civil Case No. 12-963 which ordered petitioner (the husband) to stay away from respondent (the wife) at a distance of 200 meters and to grant monthly support of Pl00,000 to (the wife) and their minor children, is AFFIRMED. Costs on petitioner (the husband).”