Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 3K views

    Figueroa V People

    Uploaded by

    BAROPS
    1) The petitioner was charged with reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and was found guilty by the RTC. On appeal to the CA, the petitioner questioned the RTC's jurisdiction over the case for the first time. 2) The CA affirmed the RTC's decision, ruling that the petitioner was estopped by laches from questioning jurisdiction as the trial had proceeded for 4 years with his active participation without raising the issue. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that lack of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage, including appeal, and is not lost by waiver or estoppel unless there are exceptional circumstances like in Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy where jurisdiction was questioned after 15 years. As the petitioner promptly

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Figueroa V People

    Uploaded by

    BAROPS
    3K views2 pages
    1) The petitioner was charged with reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and was found guilty by the RTC. On appeal to the CA, the petitioner questioned the RTC's jurisdiction over the case for the first time. 2) The CA affirmed the RTC's decision, ruling that the petitioner was estopped by laches from questioning jurisdiction as the trial had proceeded for 4 years with his active participation without raising the issue. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that lack of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage, including appeal, and is not lost by waiver or estoppel unless there are exceptional circumstances like in Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy where jurisdiction was questioned after 15 years. As the petitioner promptly

    Original Title

    Figueroa v People

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The petitioner was charged with reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and was found guilty by the RTC. On appeal to the CA, the petitioner questioned the RTC's jurisdiction over the case for the first time. 2) The CA affirmed the RTC's decision, ruling that the petitioner was estopped by laches from questioning jurisdiction as the trial had proceeded for 4 years with his active participation without raising the issue. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that lack of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage, including appeal, and is not lost by waiver or estoppel unless there are exceptional circumstances like in Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy where jurisdiction was questioned after 15 years. As the petitioner promptly

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    3K views2 pages

    Figueroa V People

    Uploaded by

    BAROPS
    1) The petitioner was charged with reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and was found guilty by the RTC. On appeal to the CA, the petitioner questioned the RTC's jurisdiction over the case for the first time. 2) The CA affirmed the RTC's decision, ruling that the petitioner was estopped by laches from questioning jurisdiction as the trial had proceeded for 4 years with his active participation without raising the issue. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that lack of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage, including appeal, and is not lost by waiver or estoppel unless there are exceptional circumstances like in Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy where jurisdiction was questioned after 15 years. As the petitioner promptly

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    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

    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.

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

    You might also like