Courts Jurisdictions Corporation Law Intra-Corporate Disputes Elements

8/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 551
Factual findings of agencies exercising quasi-judicial

functions, like the National Labor Relations Commission,
are accorded not only respect but even finality aside from
the consideration that the Supreme Court is essentially not
a trier of facts. (Aquino vs. Court of Appeals, 502 SCRA 76
[2006])
——o0o——
G.R. No. 169370. April 14, 2008.*
EUSTACIO ATWEL, LUCIA PILPIL and MANUEL

MELGAZO, petitioners, vs. CONCEPCION
**
PROGRESSIVE ASSOCIATION, INC., respondent.
Courts; Jurisdictions; Corporation Law; Intra-Corporate

Disputes; Elements.—To determine whether a case involves an
intra-corporate controversy to be heard and decided by the RTC,
two elements must concur: (1) the status or relationship of the
parties, and (2) the nature of the question that is subject of their
controversy. The first element requires that the controversy must
arise out of intra-corporate or partnership relations: (a) between
any or all of the parties and the corporation, partnership or
association of which they are stockholders, members or associates;
(b) between any or all of them and the corporation, partnership or
association of which they are stockholders, members or associates
and (c) between such corporation, partnership or association and
the State insofar as it concerns their individual franchises. On the
other hand, the second element requires that the dispute among
the parties be intrinsically connected with the regulation of the
corporation. If the nature of the
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
** Judge Salvador Y. Apurillo, presiding judge of Branch 8 of the Regional

Trial Court of Tacloban City, was impleaded as respondent. However, his name
was deleted from the title pursuant to Rule 45, Section 4 of the Rules which states
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e0a1356850f6e46db003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/13
that public respondents, like judges of the lower courts, need not be impleaded in
the petition.
273
VOL. 551, APRIL 14, 2008 273
Atwel vs. Concepcion Progressive Association, Inc.
controversy involves matters that are purely civil in character,

necessarily, the case does not involve an intra-corporate
controversy.
Same; Same; Jurisdiction by Estoppel; The operation of
estoppel on the question of jurisdiction seemingly depends on
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 the consent of the parties or by
estoppel,” but if the lower court had jurisdiction, and the case was
heard and decided upon a given theory, the party who induced it to
adopt such theory will not be permitted, on appeal, to assume an
inconsistent position that the lower court had jurisdiction.—In
Lozon v. NLRC, 240 SCRA 1 (1995), this Court came up with a
clear rule on when jurisdiction by estoppel applies and when it
does not: The operation of estoppel on the question of
jurisdiction seemingly depends on 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 the consent of the parties or by estoppel.” However, if the
lower court had jurisdiction, and the case was heard and decided
upon a given theory, such, for instance, as that the court had no
jurisdiction, the party who induced it to adopt such theory will not
be permitted, on appeal, to assume an inconsistent position—that
the lower court had jurisdiction . . . . (emphasis supplied)
Same; Same; Same; Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA 29
(1968), represented an exceptional case wherein the party invoking
the lack of jurisdiction only did so after fifteen (15) years, and at a
stage where the case was already elevated to the Court of Appeals.
—We likewise held in Metromedia that Tijam provided an
exceptional circumstance. To void the trial court’s decision in
Tijam for lack of jurisdiction was not only unfair but patently
revolting considering that the question on jurisdiction was raised
only after 15 years of tedious litigation. We said: The notion that
the defense of lack of jurisdiction may be waived by estoppel on

the party invoking the same most prominently emerged in Tijam
v. Sibonghanoy . . . . [H]owever, Tijam represented an exceptional
case wherein the party invoking
274
274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
stage where the case was already elevated to the Court of
Appeals.
Same; Same; Same; The rule remains that estoppel does not
confer jurisdiction on a tribunal that has none over the cause of
action or subject matter of the case.—The rule remains that
estoppel does not confer jurisdiction on a tribunal that has none
over the cause of action or subject matter of the case.
Unfortunately for CPAI, no exceptional circumstance appears in
this case to warrant divergence from the rule. Jurisdiction by
estoppel is not available here.
Same; Same; Same; Judgments; It is neither fair nor legal to
bind a party to the result of a suit or proceeding in a court with no
jurisdiction; The decision of a tribunal not vested with the
appropriate jurisdiction is null and void.—CPAI cannot be
permitted to wrest from petitioners (as the remaining CPA
officers) the administration of the disputed property until after
the parties’ rights are clearly adjudicated in the proper courts. It
is neither fair nor legal to bind a party to the result of a suit or
proceeding in a court with no jurisdiction. The decision of a
tribunal not vested with the appropriate jurisdiction is null and
void.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Richard W. Sison & Associates for petitioners.
Josenilo Reoma for respondent.
CORONA, J.:
The present petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court

assails the decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA), dated
March 17, 2005 in CA-G.R. SP No. 85170, declaring
petition-
_______________
1 Penned by Justice Isaias P. Dicdican, with the concurrence of Justices

Vicente L. Yap (retired) and Enrico A. Lanzanas, Twentieth Division of
the Court of Appeals. Rollo, pp. 29-35.
275
VOL. 551, APRIL 14, 2008 275

ers Eustacio Atwel,2 Lucia Pilpil and Manuel Melgazo

estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of Branch 8 of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tacloban City as a
special commercial court under Republic Act (RA) No.
8799.3
The facts follow:
In 1948, then Assemblyman Emiliano Melgazo4 founded
and organized Concepcion Progressive Association (CPA) in
Hilongos, Leyte. The organization aimed to provide
livelihood to and generate income for his supporters.
In 1968, after his election as CPA president, Emiliano
Melgazo bought a parcel of land in behalf of the association.
The property was later on converted into a wet market
where agricultural, livestock and other farm products were
sold. It also housed a cockpit and an area for various forms
of amusement. The income generated from the property,
mostly rentals from the wet market, was paid to CPA.
When Emiliano Melgazo died, his son, petitioner Manuel
Melgazo, succeeded him as CPA president and
administrator of the property. On the other hand,
petitioners Atwel and Pilpil were elected as CPA vice-
president and treasurer, respectively.
In 1997, while CPA was in the process of registering as a
stock corporation, its other elected officers and members
formed their own group and registered themselves in the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as officers and
members of respondent Concepcion Progressive
Association,
_______________
2 Also referred to as “Eustacio Atuel” in the Records.

3 The Securities Regulation Code, which took effect on August 8, 2000.
Under RA 8799, jurisdiction over intra-corporate controversies and other
cases in PD 902-A (Reorganization of the Securities and Exchange
Commission) was transferred from the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) to the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The creation of
special commercial courts was by virtue of A.M. No. 00-11-03-SC
promulgated on 21 November 2000.
4 Petitioner Manuel Melgazo’s father.
276

Inc. (CPAI). Petitioners were not listed either as officers or

members of CPAI. Later, CPAI objected to petitioners’
collection of rentals from the wet market vendors.
In 2000, CPAI filed a case in the SEC for mandatory
injunction.5 With the passage of RA 8799, the case was
transferred to Branch 24 of the Southern Leyte RTC and
subsequently, to Branch 8 of the Tacloban City RTC. Both
were special commercial courts.
In the complaint, CPAI alleged that it was the owner of
the property and petitioners, without authority, were
collecting rentals from the wet market vendors.
In their answer, petitioners refuted CPAI’s claim saying
that it was preposterous and impossible for the latter to
have acquired ownership over the property in 1968 when it
was only in 1997 that it was incorporated and registered
with the SEC. Petitioners added that since the property
was purchased using the money of petitioner Manuel
Melgazo’s father (the late Emiliano Melgazo), it belonged to
the latter.
On June 9, 2004, the special commercial court ruled that
the deed of sale covering the property was in the name of
CPA, not Emiliano Melgazo:
“The terms and language of said Deed is unmistakable that the

vendee is [CPA], through Emiliano Melgazo, and Emiliano
Melgazo signed said Deed “for and [in] behalf of the CPA”. . . there
is therefore no doubt as to who the vendee is. It is [CPA] and not
Emiliano Melgazo. As such, it is [CPA] who is the owner of said
property and not [petitioner] Manuel Melgazo . . . [Petitioners]
contend that the money used in the purchase of [the property]
was Emiliano Melgazo[’s]. This Court is not persuaded and to rule
otherwise. . . will be a contravention [to] the Parole Evidence
Rule.”6
_______________
5 With a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. SEC Case
No. 2001-07-110.
6 Rollo, p. 80. Under Rule 130, Section 9, when the terms of an agreement have
been reduced to writing, it is considered to contain all the terms agreed upon. As
between the parties and their succes-
277
VOL. 551, APRIL 14, 2008 277

In the dispositive portion of the decision, the court,

however, considered CPA to be one and the same as CPAI:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds for

[CPAI] and against [petitioners] and the latter are hereby
directed to cease and desist from collecting the vendor’s fee for
and [on] behalf of [CPAI] and to account what they have collected
from October 1996 up to the present and [turn over] the same to
the proper officer.
SO ORDERED.”7
Aggrieved, petitioners went to the CA and contested the

jurisdiction of the special commercial court over the case.
According to them, they were not CPAI members, hence the
case did not involve an intra-corporate dispute “between
and among members” so as to warrant the special
commercial court’s jurisdiction over it. CPAI, on the other
hand, argued that petitioners were already in estoppel as
they had participated actively in the court proceedings.
In its assailed decision of March 17, 2005, although the
CA found that the special commercial court should not
have tried the case since there was no intra-corporate
dispute among CPAI members or officers, it nonetheless
held that petitioners were already barred from questioning
the court’s jurisdiction based on the doctrine of estoppel.
Quoting this Court’s ruling in Tijam v. Sibonghanoy,8 the
CA held:
_______________
sors in interest, there can be no evidence of such terms other than the
contents of the written agreement.
7 Id., p. 81. Decided by Judge Salvador Y. Apurillo.

8 131 Phil. 556; 23 SCRA 29 (1968). In this case, Tijam filed a case for
recovery of sum of money in 1948 in the then Court of First Instance
(CFI), now RTC. Respondent Sibonghanoy’s surety filed a counter-bond.
When Sibonghanoy lost to Tijam, a writ of execution was later issued
against the bond. The surety opposed the execution and assailed the CFI’s
jurisdiction contending that it was the inferior courts that had jurisdiction
over the case. The Supreme Court held in this case that, although the
inferior court had jurisdiction, the surety was already estopped from
questioning the CFI’s jurisdic-
278

“An examination of the record of the case will show that [CPAI]
admitted in its Pre-Trial Brief and Amended Pre-Trial Brief that
petitioners are not its members. The fact that petitioners are
admittedly not members of [CPAI], then, [the special commercial
court] should not have taken cognizance of the case as [it]
exercises special and limited jurisdiction under R.A. No. 8799.
However, as correctly argued and pointed out by [CPAI], the acts
of the petitioners, through their counsel, in participating in the
trial of the case . . . show that they themselves consider the trial
court to have jurisdiction over the case.9
xxx xxx xxx
. . . [I]n the case of Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, the Supreme Court
categorically that:
“The rule is that the jurisdiction over the subject matter
is conferred upon the courts exclusively by law, and as the
lack of it affects the very authority of the court to take
cognizance of the case, the objection may be raised at any
stage of the proceedings. However, considering the facts and
the circumstances of the present case, a party may be
barred by laches from invoking this plea for the first time
on appeal for the purpose of annulling everything done in
the case with the active participation of said party invoking
the plea.”
Hence, we agree with [CPAI] that petitioners, after actively
participating in the trial of the case, can no longer be allowed to
impugn the jurisdiction of the court . . .10
xxx xxx xxx
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing premises, judgment is
hereby rendered by us DISMISSING the petition filed in this case
and AFFIRMING the DECISION dated June 9, 2004 of the
[special commercial court] of Tacloban City, Branch 8 in SEC
Case No. 2001-07-110.
SO ORDERED.”11

_______________
tion considering that it participated (as a quasi-party) in the proceedings and it

was only after 15 years that the question on jurisdiction was raised.
9 Supra at note 1.
10 Id., p. 33.
11 Id., p. 34.
279
VOL. 551, APRIL 14, 2008 279

Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but it was

denied by the CA.12 Hence, this petition.
Petitioners essentially argue that estoppel cannot apply
because a court’s jurisdiction is conferred exclusively by the
Constitution or by law, not by the parties’ agreement or by
estoppel.
We agree.
Originally, Section 5 of Presidential Decree (PD) 902-A13
conferred on the SEC original and exclusive jurisdiction
over the following:
“(1) Devices or schemes employed by, or any act of, the

board of directors, business associates, officers or partners,
amounting to fraud or misrepresentation which may be
detrimental to the interest of the public and/or of the
stockholders, partners, or members of any corporation,
partnership, or association;
(2) Controversies arising out of intra-corporate,
partnership, or association relations, between and among
stockholders, members, or associates; or association of
which they are stockholders, members, or associates,
respectively;
(3) Controversies in the election or appointment of directors,
trustees, officers or managers of corporations, partnerships, or
associations;
(4) Petitions of corporations, partnerships or associations to
be declared in the state of suspension of payment in cases where
the corporation, partnership or association possesses sufficient
property to cover all its debts but foresees the impossibility of
meeting them when they fall due or in cases where the
corporation, partnership or association has no sufficient assets to
cover its liabilities but is under the management of a
rehabilitation receiver or management committee . . .” (emphasis
supplied)
Upon the enactment of RA 8799 in 2000, the jurisdiction

of the SEC over intra-corporate controversies and other
cases
_______________
12 Resolution dated August 12, 2005. Rollo, pp. 36-37.

13 Reorganization of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
280

enumerated in Section 5 of PD 902-A was transferred to

the courts of general jurisdiction. Under this authority,
Branch 8 of the Tacloban City RTC, acting as a special
commercial court, deemed the mandatory injunction case
filed by CPAI an intra-corporate dispute falling under
subparagraph (2) of the aforecited provision as it involved
the officers and members thereof.
To determine whether a case involves an intra-corporate
controversy to be heard and decided by the RTC, two
elements must concur:
(1) the status or relationship of the parties, and
(2) the nature of the question that is subject of
their controversy.14
The first element requires that the controversy must
arise out of intra-corporate or partnership relations: (a)
between any or all of the parties and the corporation,
partnership or association of which they are stockholders,
members or associates; (b) between any or all of them and
the corporation, partnership or association of which they
are stockholders, members or associates and (c) between
such corporation, partnership or association and the State
insofar as it concerns their individual franchises. On the
other hand, the second element requires that the dispute
among the parties be intrinsically connected with the
regulation of the corporation.15 If the nature of the
controversy involves matters that are purely civil in
character, necessarily, the case does not involve an intra-
corporate controversy.16
In the case at bar, these elements are not present. The
records reveal that petitioners were never officers nor
members of CPAI. CPAI itself admitted this in its
pleadings. In fact,
_______________
14 Speed Distributing Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 469 Phil. 739;

425 SCRA 691 (2004).
15 Id.
16 Id.
281
VOL. 551, APRIL 14, 2008 281

petitioners were the only remaining members of CPA

which, obviously, was not the CPAI that was registered in
the SEC.
Moreover, the issue in this case does not concern the
regulation of CPAI (or even CPA). The determination as to
who is the true owner of the disputed property entitled to
the income generated therefrom is civil in nature and
should be threshed out in a regular court. Cases of this
nature are cognizable by the RTC under BP 129.17
Therefore, the conflict among the parties here was outside
the jurisdiction of the special commercial court.
But did the doctrine of estoppel bar petitioners from
questioning the jurisdiction of the special commercial
court? No.
In Lozon v. NLRC,18 this Court came up with a clear
rule on when jurisdiction by estoppel applies and when it
does not:
“The operation of estoppel on the question of

jurisdiction seemingly depends on 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 the consent of the parties or by estoppel.” However, if the
lower court had jurisdiction, and the case was heard and decided
upon a given theory, such, for instance, as that the court had no
jurisdiction, the party who induced it to adopt such theory will not
be permitted, on appeal, to assume an inconsistent position—that
the lower court had jurisdiction . . . .” (emphasis supplied)
The ruling was reiterated in Metromedia Times

Corporation [(Metromedia)] v. Pastorin,19 where we
reversed the CA ruling that Metromedia was already
estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the labor
arbiter (LA) after it participated in the proceedings before

him. There, an illegal dis-
_______________
17 The Judiciary Reorganization Act.

18 310 Phil. 1; 240 SCRA 1 (1995).
19 G.R. No. 154295, 29 July 2005, 465 SCRA 320.
282

missal case was filed by an employee against Metromedia

alleging that his transfer to another department20 was
tantamount to constructive dismissal. Realizing the issue
was properly cognizable by a voluntary arbitrator,
Metromedia assailed the LA’s jurisdiction in the NLRC and
the CA. The CA, also citing Tijam,21 ruled erroneously that
Metromedia was already barred from questioning the LA’s
jurisdiction.
We likewise held in Metromedia that Tijam provided an
exceptional circumstance. To void the trial court’s decision
in Tijam for lack of jurisdiction was not only unfair but
patently revolting considering that the question on
jurisdiction was raised only after 15 years of tedious
litigation.22 We said:
“The notion that the defense of lack of jurisdiction may be

waived by estoppel on the party invoking the same most
prominently emerged in Tijam v. Sibonghanoy . . . . [H]owever,
Tijam represented an exceptional case wherein the party invoking
stage where the case was already elevated to the Court of
Appeals.”
In Calimlim v. Ramirez,23 which we extensively quoted

in Metromedia, we spoke of Tijam in this sense:
“A rule that had been settled by unquestioned acceptance and

upheld in decisions so numerous to cite is that jurisdiction is a
matter of law and may not be conferred by consent or agreement
of the parties. . . . [T]his doctrine has been qualified by recent
pronouncements which stemmed principally from the ruling in
the cited case of [Tijam v.] Sibonghanoy. It is to be regretted,
however, that the holding in said case had been applied to
situations which were obviously not contemplated therein. The

exceptional circumstances involved in [Tijam v.] Sibonghanoy
which justified the departure from the ac-
_______________
20 Due to his failure to pay his personal obligations to Metromedia’s client.

21 Supra at note 8.
22 Id. It was Sibonghanoy’s surety that questioned the court’s jurisdiction in
this case.
23 No. L-34362, 19 November 1982, 118 SCRA 399.
283
VOL. 551, APRIL 14, 2008 283

cepted doctrine of non-waivability of objection to jurisdiction has

been ignored and instead a blanket doctrine had been repeatedly
upheld that rendered the supposed ruling [therein] not as the
exception, but rather the general rule, virtually overthrowing
altogether the time-honored principle that the issue of jurisdiction
is not lost by waiver or by estoppel.”
The rule remains that estoppel does not confer

jurisdiction on a tribunal that has none over the cause of
action or subject matter of the case.24 Unfortunately for
CPAI, no exceptional circumstance appears in this case to
warrant divergence from the rule. Jurisdiction by estoppel
is not available here.
Consequently, CPAI cannot be permitted to wrest from
petitioners (as the remaining CPA officers) the
administration of the disputed property until after the
parties’ rights are clearly adjudicated in the proper courts.
It is neither fair nor legal to bind a party to the result of a
suit or proceeding in a court with no jurisdiction.25 The
decision of a tribunal not vested with the appropriate
jurisdiction is null and void.26
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The
assailed decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
85170 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, SEC
Case No. 2001-07-110 is DISMISSED for lack of
jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED.
Puno (Chairperson), Carpio and Leonardo-De Castro,

JJ., concur.
Azcuna, J., On Official Leave.
_______________
24 See also Southeast Asian Fisheries and Development Center-

Aquaculture Department (SEAFDEC-AQD) v. National Labor Relations
Commission, G.R. No. 86773, 14 February 1992, 206 SCRA 283; Union
Motors Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, 373 Phil.
310; 314 SCRA 531 (1999).
25 Calimlim v. Ramirez, supra.
26 Id.
© Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Courts Jurisdictions Corporation Law Intra-Corporate Disputes Elements

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Courts Jurisdictions Corporation Law Intra-Corporate Disputes Elements

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Courts Jurisdictions Corporation Law Intra-Corporate Disputes Elements

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 551

Factual findings of agencies exercising quasi-judicial

G.R. No. 169370. April 14, 2008.*

EUSTACIO ATWEL, LUCIA PILPIL and MANUEL

Courts; Jurisdictions; Corporation Law; Intra-Corporate

** Judge Salvador Y. Apurillo, presiding judge of Branch 8 of the Regional

VOL. 551, APRIL 14, 2008 273

Atwel vs. Concepcion Progressive Association, Inc.

controversy involves matters that are purely civil in character,

the defense of lack of jurisdiction may be waived by estoppel on

274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Atwel vs. Concepcion Progressive Association, Inc.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

The present petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court

1 Penned by Justice Isaias P. Dicdican, with the concurrence of Justices

VOL. 551, APRIL 14, 2008 275

ers Eustacio Atwel,2 Lucia Pilpil and Manuel Melgazo

2 Also referred to as “Eustacio Atuel” in the Records.

4 Petitioner Manuel Melgazo’s father.

276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Inc. (CPAI). Petitioners were not listed either as officers or

“The terms and language of said Deed is unmistakable that the

VOL. 551, APRIL 14, 2008 277

In the dispositive portion of the decision, the court,

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds for

Aggrieved, petitioners went to the CA and contested the

7 Id., p. 81. Decided by Judge Salvador Y. Apurillo.

278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

tion considering that it participated (as a quasi-party) in the proceedings and it

VOL. 551, APRIL 14, 2008 279

Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but it was

“(1) Devices or schemes employed by, or any act of, the

Upon the enactment of RA 8799 in 2000, the jurisdiction

12 Resolution dated August 12, 2005. Rollo, pp. 36-37.

280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

enumerated in Section 5 of PD 902-A was transferred to

14 Speed Distributing Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 469 Phil. 739;

VOL. 551, APRIL 14, 2008 281

petitioners were the only remaining members of CPA

“The operation of estoppel on the question of

The ruling was reiterated in Metromedia Times

arbiter (LA) after it participated in the proceedings before

17 The Judiciary Reorganization Act.

282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

missal case was filed by an employee against Metromedia

“The notion that the defense of lack of jurisdiction may be

In Calimlim v. Ramirez,23 which we extensively quoted

“A rule that had been settled by unquestioned acceptance and

situations which were obviously not contemplated therein. The

20 Due to his failure to pay his personal obligations to Metromedia’s client.

VOL. 551, APRIL 14, 2008 283

cepted doctrine of non-waivability of objection to jurisdiction has

The rule remains that estoppel does not confer

Puno (Chairperson), Carpio and Leonardo-De Castro,

24 See also Southeast Asian Fisheries and Development Center-

© Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like

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