estoppel?

VENANCIO FIGUEROA y CERVANTES, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES [ABALOS]

Recit Ready: A case was filed against Cervantes reckless imprudence resulting to homicide in
RTC-Bulacan and he was convicted. He raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction of the RTC (since
MTC should have had jurisdiction because of the imposable penalty) in his appeal in the CA
and respondents stated that there is already estoppel by laches from questioning the
jurisdiction of the RTC since he had actively participated in the proceedings in the said Court.
The issue was w/n Cervantes was estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the RTC.
The SC ruled that Cervantes was not estopped since there was no unreasonable delay so as
to warrant estoppel by laches. Cervantes clearly exercised his right of questioning the
jurisdiction of the RTC through appeal to the CA as the issue of jurisdiction may be raised at
any stage of the proceedings. [Refer to Doctrine]
Issue: Whether or not CERVANTES is estopped by laches from assailing the jurisdiction of a
tribunal? --- NO.
Held: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED.
Criminal Case No. 2235-M-94 is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice.
Ratio:
1. General Rule: jurisdiction of the court to hear and decide a case is conferred by the
law in force at the time of the institution of the action,
Exception: Unless the statute provides for a retroactive application thereof.
2. In this case, at the time the criminal information for reckless imprudence resulting in
homicide with violation of the Automobile Law2 was filed, Section 32(2) of BP Blg. 129
had already been amended by RA No.7691.

Doctrine: “Sec. 32. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal
GR: that the issue of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on Circuit
appeal, and is not lost by waiver or by estoppel—
Trial Courts in Criminal Cases.—Except in cases falling within the exclusive original
E: Estoppel by laches, to bar a litigant from asserting the court’s absence or lack of jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and the Sandiganbayan, the Metropolitan Trial
jurisdiction, only supervenes in exceptional cases similar to the factual milieu of Tijam v. Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
Sibonghanoy.
xxxx
GR: Delay alone, though unreasonable, will not sustain the defense of “estoppel by laches”
(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with imprisonment not
E: Unless it further appears that the party, knowing his rights, has not sought to enforce them exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the amount of fine, and regardless of other
until the condition of the party pleading laches has in good faith become so changed that he imposable accessory or other penalties, including the civil liability arising from such
cannot be restored to his former state, if the rights be then enforced, due to loss of evidence, offenses or predicated thereon, irrespective of kind, nature, value or amount thereof:
change of title, intervention of equities, and other causes. Provided, however, That in offenses involving damage to property through criminal
negligence, they shall have exclusive original jurisdiction thereof.”
Facts:
1. July 8, 199: A case was filed for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide against 3. As the imposable penalty for the crime charged herein is prision correccional in its
the VENANCIO FIGUEROA y CERVANTES RTC-Bulacan. RTC convicted CERVANTES. medium and maximum periods or imprisonment for 2 years, 4 months and 1 day to
2. CERVANTES raised, for the first time, the RTC’s jurisdiction. CA ruled that CERVANTES 6 years, jurisdiction to hear and try the same is conferred on the Municipal Trial
actively participated in the trial; thus, he was already estopped by laches from Courts (MTCs).
asserting the trial court’s lack of jurisdiction.1 4. Clearly, therefore, RTC Bulacan does not have jurisdiction over this case.
3. CERVANTES filed an instant petition for review on certiorari raising the issue on
jurisdiction: Appellate Court + SolGen Cervantes
 Does the fact that the CERVANTES failed to raise the issue of jurisdiction during the
trial of this case, which was initiated and filed by the public prosecutor before the
Acknowledged lack of jurisdiction, they Countered that the lack of jurisdiction of a
wrong court, constitute laches in relation to the doctrine laid down in Tijam v.
nevertheless are of the position that the court over the subject matter may be raised
Sibonghanoy, notwithstanding the fact that said issue was immediately raised in
principle of estoppel by laches has already at any time even for the first time on
petitioner’s appeal to the Honorable Court of Appeals?
precluded the petitioner from questioning appeal. As undue delay is further absent
Conversely, does the active participation of the petitioner in the trial of his case,
the jurisdiction participating therein and herein, the principle of laches will not be
which is initiated and filed not by him but by the public prosecutor, amount to
without him ever raising the jurisdictional

1 CA affirmed the petitioner’s conviction but modified the penalty imposed and the damages awarded. 2 Now Land Transportation and Traffic Code
infirmity. applicable.
5. Cases prior Tijam v. Sibonghanoy were conflicting, such as:
U.S. v. De La Santa: Unless jurisdiction has been conferred by some legislative act, no
court or tribunal can act on a matter submitted to it.
People v. Casiano: The operation of the principle of estoppel on the question of
jurisdiction seemingly depends upon whether the lower court actually had
jurisdiction or not. If it had no jurisdiction, but the case was tried and decided upon
the theory that it had jurisdiction, the parties are not barred, on appeal, from
assailing such jurisdiction, for the same “must exist as a matter of law, and may not
be conferred by consent of the parties or by estoppel”
Pindañgan Agricultural Co., Inc. v. Dans: the Court, did NOT sustain the plea of lack
of jurisdiction by the plaintiff-appellee, holding that the jurisdiction of the Court was
never impugned until an adverse decision was held.
6. In Tijam v. Sibonghanoy: A party may be barred by laches from invoking lack of
jurisdiction at a late hour for the purpose of annulling everything done in the case
with the active participation of said party invoking the plea.
“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.
Laches3, 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.
Laches 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.
7. It has been held that a party cannot 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
8. It has also been held that after voluntarily submitting a cause and encountering an
adverse decision, the Court said that it is not right for a party who has affirmed and
invoked the jurisdiction of a court in a particular matter to secure an affirmative
relief, to afterwards deny that same jurisdiction to escape a penalty.
3 AKA Stale Demands
9. In Sibonghanoy, the defense of lack of jurisdiction of the court that rendered the
questioned ruling was held to be barred by estoppel by laches. It was ruled that the
lack of jurisdiction having been raised for the first time in a motion to dismiss filed
almost 15 years after the questioned ruling had been rendered, such a plea may no
longer be raised for being barred by laches.
10. The General Rule: the issue of jurisdiction is not lost by waiver or by estoppel.
Exception: Laches should CLEARLY be present for the Sibonghanoy doctrine to be
applicable
11. In sum: Laches should have been clearly present; 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.
12. Applying the said doctrine to the instant case, the CERVANTES is in no way estopped
by laches in assailing the jurisdiction of the RTC since he raised the lack of jurisdiction
in his appeal.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.