GR No. L-21450
April 15, 1968
Facts
Petitioner filed in the CFI a civil case to recover the amount of P1,098 from respondents. A writ of attachment was issued but was dissolved upon the filing of a counter-bond by the defendant and the Manila Surety and Fidelity Co. After trial, the Court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs which had become final and executory. Petitioners moved for the issuance of a writ of execution against the defendants. The Surety opposed the writ of execution on the ground that no demand was made, moving the Court to deny the writ of execution.
Later on, the necessary demand was made, but the Surety failed to satisfy the judgment. Hence, a second writ of execution was filed by the plaintiff. It was opposed by the Surety on the ground of lack of summary hearing required by the ROC, but the same was denied. Such denial was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Thereafter, the Surety filed a MOTION TO DISMISS on the ground that the CFI has no jurisdiction over the case because pursuant to RA No. 926. The CFI has no jurisdiction to try civil cases wherein the claim or demand does not exceed P2,000.
Issue
Whether or not the Surety can still question the jurisdiction of the Court.
Held
No. The general rule is that the jurisdiction of the Court can be challenged at any stage of the proceeding. However, an exception to the rule is the doctrine of laches.
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; 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 (inequity and unfairness).
Hence, 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. 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 cannot be tolerated — obviously for reasons of public policy.
In this case, the Surety failed to question the jurisdiction of the CFI at the time the case was commenced. 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.
Therefore, the Surety can no longer question the jurisdiction of the CFI.