Tijam, et al. vs. Sibonghanoy, et al.
SERAFIN TIJAM, et al. vs. MAGDALENO SIBONGHANOY, et al.
G.R. NO. L-21450 APRIL 15, 1968
131 PHIL REP 556
PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU ARE PRESUMED THAT YOU HAVE READ THE ORIGINAL TEXT OF THE CASE. THIS IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF REVIEW. *Read at your own risk* :)
(Criminal Procedure)
FACTS:
· July 19, 1948 - The Sps. Tijam filed a complaint for collection of sum of money with writ of attachment against Sps. Sibonghanoy.
· July 31 - Counter-bound filed by the defendants and Manila Surety and Fidelity Co. Inc. (Surety).
· RTC – in favor of Tijam; issued the writ of execution (woe) against defendants however insufficient; further issued against the Surety.
· Surety ---> written opposition; failure to prosecute and absence of demand upon surety for the payment.
· Plaintiff ---> 2nd motion to issue WOE.
· Surety ---> MTQ the writ; without required summary hearing ---> RTC DENIED.
· Surety ---> APPEAL to CA; although not one of the Assignment of Errors it is obvious raises the QUESTION OF LACK OF JURISDICTION.
· January 10, 1963, Surety ---> MTD before RTC; Tijam’s action for recovery of P 1,908 should be filed before the inferior courts; according to SEC. 88 (RA 296 – Judiciaty Act of 1948) : “within the original exclusive jurisdiction of the inferior courts, all civil actions where the value of the subject matter or the amount of the demand does NOT exceed P 2,000” the law was effective on JUNE 17, 1948.
THEREFORE, RTC has NO JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER
HELD: in favor of the Sps. Tijam
· The rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred upon the courts exclusively by law, and as a lack of it affects the very authority of the court to take cognizance of the case, the objection may be raised at any stage of the proceedings.
· HOWEVER, in the present case, SURETY IS NOW BARRED BY LACHES from invoking this plea at this late hour for the purport of annulling everything done
· 15 YEARS before the surety filed MTD on raising the question of lack of jurisdiction for the first time.
· LACHES – is failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier.
· DOCTRINE OF LACHES / STALE DEMANDS – upon the grounds of public policy, which requires, for the peace of the society and discouragement of stale claims.
- it is NOT a mere question of time but principally a question of inequity or unfairness of permitting a right or claim to be enforced or asserted.
NOTES:
Remedial Law; Party guilty of laches may not invoke lack o jurisdiction on appeal as in instant case -
It is undisputed fact that the action commenced by the appellees in the CFI of Cebu against the Sibonghanoy spouses was for the recovery of the sum of P 1,908.00 only - an amount within the original exclusive jurisdiction of inferior courts in accordance with the provisions of the Judiciary Act of 1948 which had taken effect about a month prior to the date when the action was commenced. True also is the rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred upon the courts exclusively by law, and as the lack of it affects the very authority of the court to take cognizance of the case, the objection may be raised at any stage of the proceedings. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case - which shall forthwith be set forth - We are of the opinion that the Surety is now barred by laches from invoking this plea at this late hour for the purpose of annuling everything done heretofore in the case with its active participation.
Remedial Law; Estoppel; Different ways a party may be barred from raising question -
A party may be estopped or barred from raising a question in different ways and for different reason. Thus we speak of estoppel in pais, of estoppel by deed or by record, and of estoppel by laches.
Remedial Law; Laches; Definition
Laches, in a general sense, is failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it.
Remedial Law; Instances when party may be estopped from invoking question of jusridiction.
A party can not invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief against his opponent and, after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that same jurisdiction. In the case just cited, by way of explaining the rule, it was further said that the question whether the court had jurisdiction either of the subject matter of the action or of the parties was not important in such cases because the party is barred from such conduct not because the judgment or order of the court is valid and conclusive as an adjudication, but for, the reason that such a practice can not be tolerated - obviously for reasons of public policy.
Remedial Law; Failure to raise question of Jurisdiction at an earlier stage bars party from questioning it later.
Where from the time the Surety became a quasi-party on July 31, 1948, it could have raised the question of the lack of jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance of Cebu to take cognizance of the present action by reason of the sum of money involved which, according to the law then in force, was within the original exclusive jurisdiction of inferior courts. It failed to do so. Instead, at several stages of the proceedings in the court a quo as well as in the Court of Appeals, it invoked the jurisdiction of said courts to obtain affirmative relief and submitted its case for a final adjudication on the merits. It was only after an adverse decision was rendered by the Court of Appeals that it finally woke up to raise the question of jurisdiction. Were We to sanction such conduct on its part, We would in effect be declaring as useless all the proceedings had in the present case since it was commenced on July 19, 1948 and compel the judgment creditors to go up their Calvary once more. The inequity and unfairness of this is not only patent but revolting.
0 comments :
Post a Comment