Case Digest (G.R. No. L-21450)
Facts:
On July 19, 1948 the plaintiffs-appellees Serafin Tijam and Felicitas Tagalog sued the spouses Magdaleno Sibonghanoy and Lucia Baguio in the Court of First Instance of Cebu for P1,908, and a writ of attachment was dissolved on July 31, 1948 upon the filing of a counter-bond by Manila Surety and Fidelity Co., Inc. (Cebu Branch). After judgment for the plaintiffs became final and execution against the defendants proved unsatisfied, the plaintiffs demanded payment from the Surety and obtained a writ of execution against the bond; the Surety moved to quash for lack of the summary hearing under Sec. 17, Rule 59, the Court denied relief, the Court of Appeals affirmed on December 11, 1962, and the case was certified to the Supreme Court after the Surety belatedly raised lack of jurisdiction under Republic Act No. 296.
Issues:
- Is the appellant Manila Surety and Fidelity Co., Inc. barred by laches from attacking the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance after participating for years and accepting the court's jurisdiction to obtain relief?
- Did the issuance of a writ of execution against the bond comply with the *summary hearing* requirement of Sec. 17, Rule 59?
- May execution be had against a bond filed under Sec. 12, Rule 59 without a separate action and judgment against the surety?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the Court of Appeals and denied the appellant's appeal, with costs against Manila Surety and Fidelity Co., Inc. The Court held that the Surety was barred by laches from raising lack of jurisdiction at that late stage and that the summary-hearing requirement of Sec. 17, Rule 59 was satisfied because the Surety was notified, counsel was present, was granted time to answer and failed to do so; accordingly execution against the bond was proper.
Ratio:
The Court reasoned that subject-matter jurisdiction may be waived or forfeited by conduct where a party becomes a quasi-party, invokes the court's jurisdiction to obtain affirmative relief, and then, after an adverse decision long delayed, seeks to repudiate that jurisdiction; such delay and conduct constitute laches and offend public policy against stale claims. As to Sec. 17, Rule 59, the essential requisites are notice and an opportunity to be heard in a summary manner, and those requisites were met when counsel asked for and received time to answer and the incident was thereafter submitted for resolution; moreover a bond given to discharge attachment stands in place of the property and becomes liable when execution is returned unsatisfied and demand is made.
Doctrine:
- A party who invokes a court's jurisdiction to obtain affirmative relief and participates in the proceedings may be barred by laches from later attacking that court's jurisdiction.
- (Get Pro to unlock 3 more doctrines)