FIGUEROA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES GR 107406 July 14, 2008

 

FIGUEROA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

 

JULY 14, 2008

 

NACHURA, J.

 

SUBJECT AREA: Estoppel by laches

 

NATURE: Petition for review on certiorari

 

FACTS: Petitioner was charged with the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. The RTC found him guilty. In his appeal before the CA, the petitioner, for the first time, questioned RTCs jurisdiction on the case.

 

The CA in affirming the decision of the RTC, ruled that the principle of estoppel by laches has already precluded the petitioner from questioning the jurisdiction of the RTC—the trial went on for 4 years with the petitioner actively participating therein and without him ever raising the jurisdictional infirmity. 

 

The petitioner, for his part, counters that the lack of jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter may be raised at any time even for the first time on appeal.  As undue delay is further absent herein, the principle of laches will not be applicable.

 

Hence, this petition.

 

ISSUE: WON petitioner’s failure to raise the issue of jurisdiction during the trial of this case, constitute laches in relation to the doctrine laid down in Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, notwithstanding the fact that said issue was immediately raised in petitioner’s appeal to the CA

 

Complaint is homicide through reckless imprudence (the legally correct designation is "reckless imprudence resulting to homicide")

 

HELD: No.

 

RATIO: Citing the ruling in Calimlim vs. Ramirez, the Court held that as a general rule, the issue of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal, and is not lost by waiver or by estoppel.

 

Estoppel by laches may be invoked to bar the issue of lack of jurisdiction only in cases in which the factual milieu is analogous to that of Tijam v. Sibonghanoy. 

 

Laches should be clearly present for the Sibonghanoy doctrine to be applicable, that is, lack of jurisdiction must have been raised so belatedly as to warrant the presumption that the party entitled to assert it had abandoned or declined to assert it.  

 

In Sibonghanoy, the party invoking lack of jurisdiction did so only after fifteen years and at a stage when the proceedings had already been elevated to the CA.  Sibonghanoy is an exceptional case because of the presence of laches.

 

In the case at bar, the factual settings attendant in Sibonghanoy are not present.  Petitioner Atty. Regalado, after the receipt of the Court of Appeals resolution finding her guilty of contempt, promptly filed a Motion for Reconsideration assailing the said court’s jurisdiction based on procedural infirmity in initiating the action.  Her compliance with the appellate court’s directive to show cause why she should not be cited for contempt and filing a single piece of pleading to that effect could not be considered as an active participation in the judicial proceedings so as to take the case within the milieu of Sibonghanoy.  Rather, it is the natural fear to disobey the mandate of the court that could lead to dire consequences that impelled her to comply.

 

The petitioner is in no way estopped by laches in assailing the jurisdiction of the RTC, considering that he raised the lack thereof in his appeal before the appellate court.  At that time, no considerable period had yet elapsed for laches to attach.

 

Applying the said doctrine to the instant case, the petitioner is in no way estopped by laches in assailing the jurisdiction of the RTC, considering that he raised the lack thereof in his appeal before the appellate court. At that time, no considerable period had yet elapsed for laches to attach. True, delay alone, though unreasonable, will not sustain the defense of "estoppel by laches" unless it further appears that the party, knowing his rights, has not sought to enforce them until the condition of the party pleading laches has in good faith become so changed that he cannot be restored to his former state, if the rights be then enforced, due to loss of evidence, change of title, intervention of equities, and other causes. In applying the principle of estoppel by laches in the exceptional case of Sibonghanoy, the Court therein considered the patent and revolting inequity and unfairness of having the judgment creditors go up their Calvary once more after more or less 15 years. The same, however, does not obtain in the instant case.

We note at this point that estoppel, being in the nature of a forfeiture, is not favored by law. It is to be applied rarely—only from necessity, and only in extraordinary circumstances. The doctrine must be applied with great care and the equity must be strong in its favor. When misapplied, the doctrine of estoppel may be a most effective weapon for the accomplishment of injustice. Moreover, a judgment rendered without jurisdiction over the subject matter is void. Hence, the Revised Rules of Court provides for remedies in attacking judgments rendered by courts or tribunals that have no jurisdiction over the concerned cases. No laches will even attach when the judgment is null and void for want of jurisdiction.

 

DISPOSITIVE: Petition for review on certiorari is granted. Criminal case is dismissed.