Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy G.R. No. L-21450 April 15, 1968

 

Doctrine of laches bars a party from attacking the jurisdiction has been extended to criminal cases.

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.

The doctrine of laches or of "stale demands" is based upon grounds of public policy which requires, for the peace of society, the discouragement of stale claims and, unlike the statute of limitations, is not a mere question of time but is principally a question of the inequity or unfairness of permitting a right or claim to be enforced or asserted.

 

SERAFIN TIJAM, ET AL., Plaintiffs-appellees, -versus- MAGDALENO SIBONGHANOY ALIAS GAVINO SIBONGHANOY, ET AL., Defendants, MANILA SURETY AND FIDELITY CO., INC. (CEBU BRANCH) bonding Company and Defendant-Appellant.

G.R. No. L-21450 | April 15, 1968 | En Banc | Justice Dizon

Remedial Law | Civil Procedure | Jurisdiction

A party may be estopped or barred from raising a question by laches, which 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. Here, the Surety could have raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction in the trial court, but it only did so after receiving the appellate court’s adverse decision. Hence, it is barred by laches.

FACTS:

On July 19, 1948 — barely one month after the effectivity of Republic Act No. 296 known as the Judiciary Act of 1948 — the spouses Serafin Tijam and Felicitas Tagalog commenced a case in the Court of First Instance (CFI) against the spouses Magdaleno Sibonghanoy and Lucia Baguio to recover from them the sum of P1,908.00, with legal interest thereon. As prayed for in the complaint, a writ of attachment was issued by the court against defendants’ properties, but the same was soon dissolved upon the filing of a counter-bond by defendants and the Manila Surety and Fidelity Co., Inc. hereinafter referred to as the Surety, on the 31st of the same month.

After trial upon the issues thus joined, the CFI rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and, after the same had become final and executory, upon motion of the latter, the CFI issued a writ of execution against the defendants. The writ having been returned unsatisfied, the plaintiffs moved for the issuance of a writ of execution against the Surety’s bond against which the Surety filed a written opposition. The CFI denied this motion on the ground solely that no previous demand had been made on the Surety for the satisfaction of the judgment. Thereafter, the necessary demand was made, and upon failure of the Surety to satisfy the judgment, the plaintiffs filed a second motion for execution against the counter-bond. Upon the Surety’s failure to file an answer to the motion, the CFI granted the motion for execution and the corresponding writ was issued.

Subsequently, the Surety moved to quash the writ on the ground that the same was issued without the required summary hearing provided for in Section 17 of Rule 59 of the Rules of Court. As the CFI denied the motion, the Surety appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) from such order of denial and from the one denying its motion for reconsideration. Not one of the assignment of errors raises the question of lack of jurisdiction, neither directly nor indirectly.

The CA decided the case affirming the orders appealed from. After the Surety received notice of the decision, it filed a pleading entitled MOTION TO DISMISS, alleging substantially that appellees’ action was filed in the CFI of Cebu on July 19, 1948 for the recovery of the sum of P1,908.00 only; that a month before that date Republic Act No. 296, otherwise known as the Judiciary Act of 1948, had already become effective, Section 88 of which placed within the original exclusive jurisdiction of inferior courts all civil actions where the value of the subject matter or the amount of the demand does not exceed P2,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs; that the CFI therefore had no jurisdiction to try and decide the case.

ISSUE:

Whether the Surety is barred from raising the jurisdictional issue by laches.

RULING:

Yes. A party may be estopped or barred from raising a question in different ways and for different reasons. Thus, we speak of estoppel in pais, of estoppel by deed or by record, and of estoppel by laches. 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.

The facts of this case show that 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 CFI 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 CA, 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 CA that it finally woke up to raise the question of jurisdiction. If such conduct is to be sanctioned, the SC 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 after more or less 15 years.