Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 681 views

    TIJAM Vs Sibonghanoy

    Uploaded by

    Marilou Garal
    1. Tijam filed a case against Sionghalanoy for recovery of P1,908 plus interest in a lower court that had jurisdiction over cases with demands not exceeding P2,000. Judgment was issued in favor of Tijam and a writ of execution was issued against Sionghalanoy. 2. Manila Surety and Fidelity Co., who was the surety for Sionghalanoy, questioned the jurisdiction of the lower court for the first time on appeal to the Court of Appeals, over 15 years later. 3. The Supreme Court held that the surety is now barred by laches from invoking this plea, as it failed to question the lower

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    TIJAM Vs Sibonghanoy

    Uploaded by

    Marilou Garal
    681 views2 pages
    1. Tijam filed a case against Sionghalanoy for recovery of P1,908 plus interest in a lower court that had jurisdiction over cases with demands not exceeding P2,000. Judgment was issued in favor of Tijam and a writ of execution was issued against Sionghalanoy. 2. Manila Surety and Fidelity Co., who was the surety for Sionghalanoy, questioned the jurisdiction of the lower court for the first time on appeal to the Court of Appeals, over 15 years later. 3. The Supreme Court held that the surety is now barred by laches from invoking this plea, as it failed to question the lower

    Original Description:

    Case digest of Tijam vs Sibonghanoy

    Original Title

    TIJAM vs Sibonghanoy

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. Tijam filed a case against Sionghalanoy for recovery of P1,908 plus interest in a lower court that had jurisdiction over cases with demands not exceeding P2,000. Judgment was issued in favor of Tijam and a writ of execution was issued against Sionghalanoy. 2. Manila Surety and Fidelity Co., who was the surety for Sionghalanoy, questioned the jurisdiction of the lower court for the first time on appeal to the Court of Appeals, over 15 years later. 3. The Supreme Court held that the surety is now barred by laches from invoking this plea, as it failed to question the lower

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    681 views2 pages

    TIJAM Vs Sibonghanoy

    Uploaded by

    Marilou Garal
    1. Tijam filed a case against Sionghalanoy for recovery of P1,908 plus interest in a lower court that had jurisdiction over cases with demands not exceeding P2,000. Judgment was issued in favor of Tijam and a writ of execution was issued against Sionghalanoy. 2. Manila Surety and Fidelity Co., who was the surety for Sionghalanoy, questioned the jurisdiction of the lower court for the first time on appeal to the Court of Appeals, over 15 years later. 3. The Supreme Court held that the surety is now barred by laches from invoking this plea, as it failed to question the lower

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    TIJAM vs.

    SIBONGHANOY (23 SCRA 29)


    FACTS:
    Tijam filed for recovery of P1,908 + legal interest from Sionga!anoy" #efendants filed a
    co$nter ond %it! &anila S$rety and Fidelity Co 'S$rety(" )$dgement %as in favo$r of t!e
    *laintiffs, a %rit of e+ec$tion %as iss$ed against t!e defendant" #efendants moved for %rit of
    e+ec$tion against s$rety %!ic! %as granted" S$rety moved to ,$as! t!e %rit $t %as denied,
    a**ealed to CA %it!o$t raising t!e iss$e on lac- of j$risdiction"CA affirmed t!e a**ealed
    decision" S$rety t!en filed &otion to #ismiss on t!e gro$nd of lac- of j$risdiction against CF.
    Ce$ in vie% of t!e effectivity of )$diciary Act of 19/8 a mont! efore t!e filing of t!e *etition
    for recovery" Act *laced original e+cl$sive j$risdiction of inferior co$rts all civil actions for
    demands not e+ceeding 0,000 e+cl$sive of interest" CA set aside its earlier decision and referred
    t!e case to SC since it !as e+cl$sive j$risdiction over 1all cases in %!ic! t!e j$risdiction of any
    inferior co$rt is in iss$e"
    ISSUE:
    234 S$rety ond is esto**ed from ,$estioning t!e j$risdiction of t!e CF. Ce$ for t!e first
    time $*on a**eal" 56S
    RATIO:
    SC elieves t!at t!at t!e S$rety is no% arred y lac!es from invo-ing t!is *lea after a!"st
    f#ftee$ %ears &ef"re t'eS(ret% f#e) #ts !"t#"$ t" )#s!#ss ra#s#$* t'e +(est#"$ "f a,- "f
    .(r#s)#,t#"$ f"r t'e f#rst t#!e 7 A *arty may e esto**ed or arred from raising a ,$estion in
    different %ays and for different reasons" T!$s %e s*ea- of esto**el in *ais, or esto**el y deed
    or y record, and of esto**el y lac!es" 8ac!es, in a general sense is fail$re or neglect, for an
    $nreasonale and $ne+*lained lengt! of time, to do t!at %!ic!, y e+ercising d$e diligence,
    co$ld or s!o$ld !ave een done earlier 7 F$rt!ermore, it !as also een !eld t!at after vol$ntarily
    s$mitting a ca$se and enco$ntering an adverse decision on t!e merits, it is too late for t!e loser
    to ,$estion t!e j$risdiction or *o%er of t!e co$rt 71$ndesirale *ractice1 of a *arty s$mitting !is
    case for decision and t!en acce*ting t!e j$dgment, only if favorale, and attac-ing it for lac- of
    j$risdiction, %!en adverse": 3t!er merits on t!e a**eal : T!e s$rety insists t!at t!e lo%er co$rt
    s!o$ld !ave granted its motion to ,$as! t!e %rit of e+ec$tion eca$se t!e same %as iss$ed
    %it!o$t t!e s$mmary !earing 7 S$mmary !earing is 1not intended to e carried on in t!e formal
    manner in %!ic! ordinary actions are *rosec$ted1 '89 C")"S" :90(" .t is, rat!er, a *roced$re y
    %!ic! a ,$estion is resolved 1%it! dis*atc!, %it! t!e least *ossile delay, and in *reference to
    ordinary legal and reg$lar j$dicial *roceedings1 '.id,*" :90(" 2!at is essential is t!at 1t!e
    defendant is notified or s$mmoned to a**ear and is given an o**ort$nity to !ear %!at is $rged
    $*on !im, and to inter*ose a defense, after %!ic! follo%s an adj$dication of t!e rig!ts of t!e
    *arties 7 .n t!e case at ar,t!e s$rety !ad een notified of t!e *laintiffs; motion for e+ec$tion and
    of t!e date %!en t!e same %o$ld e s$mitted for consideration" .n fact, t!e s$rety;s co$nsel %as
    *resent in co$rt %!en t!e motion %as called, and it %as $*on !is re,$est t!at t!e co$rt a ,$o
    gave !im a *eriod of fo$r days %it!in %!ic! to file an ans%er" 5et !e allo%ed t!at *eriod to
    la*se %it!o$t filing an ans%er or ojection" T!e s$rety cannot no%, t!erefore, com*lain t!at it
    %as de*rived of its day in co$rt T!e orders a**ealed from are affirmed"

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy