Title
Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy
Case
G.R. No. L-21450
Decision Date
Apr 15, 1968
Plaintiffs sued defendants for P1,908; Surety’s counter-bond executed after 15 years. Jurisdiction challenged late; laches barred Surety. Writ upheld; participation estopped jurisdictional claim.
surety company
lack of jurisdiction
actively participating

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-21450)

Factual Background

The plaintiffs-appellees sued the Sibonghanoy spouses for recovery of PHP 1,908.00 on July 19, 1948, a month after the effective date of the Judiciary Act of 1948. The trial court issued a writ of attachment which was dissolved when the defendants filed a counter-bond on July 31, 1948 signed by the Manila Surety and Fidelity Co., Inc.. Defendants answered and interposed a counterclaim, which the plaintiffs answered. After trial the court rendered judgment for the plaintiffs, and the writ of execution against the defendants was returned unsatisfied.

Proceedings Against the Bonding Company

Following the unsatisfied execution against the defendants, the plaintiffs moved for issuance of writ of execution against the counter-bond under Sec. 17, Rule 59, Rules of Court. The surety opposed the first motion on grounds of failure to prosecute and absence of demand upon the surety and sought affirmative relief to be relieved of liability under the bond. The trial court denied the opposition for failure to show a prior demand, the plaintiffs then made the requisite demand, and upon the surety’s failure to pay the plaintiffs filed a second motion for execution against the bond.

Trial Court Orders and Movements

At the hearing on the second motion, counsel for the surety obtained leave until November 6, 1957, to answer, with the court ordering that after that period "the incident shall be deemed submitted for resolution." Counsel filed no answer; the trial court granted the motion for execution and issued a writ on December 12, 1957. The surety then moved to quash the writ on the ground that the writ issued without the required summary hearing under Sec. 17, Rule 59, and the trial court denied the motion and a subsequent motion for reconsideration.

Court of Appeals Appeal and Assignments of Error

The surety appealed to the Court of Appeals from the trial court’s orders denying the motion to quash and the motion for reconsideration. Its brief raised only procedural errors: failure to afford the required summary hearing under Sec. 17, Rule 59, error in ordering execution against the bonding company, and error in denying the motion to quash. The Court of Appeals, despite the appellees’ failure to file a brief, affirmed the trial court by decision dated December 11, 1962.

Late Jurisdictional Objection and Certification to the Supreme Court

Shortly after the adverse decision, the surety sought extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration, and then filed a motion to dismiss on January 12, 1963, contending for the first time that the Court of First Instance lacked original jurisdiction under R.A. No. 296 because the demand was PHP 1,908.00, an amount within the exclusive original jurisdiction of inferior courts under Sections 44[c] and 86[b]. The Court of Appeals, noting the importance of the jurisdictional question and the Supreme Court’s exclusive appellate jurisdiction over cases where inferior court jurisdiction was in issue, set aside its decision and certified the record to the Supreme Court pursuant to Section 31 of the Judiciary Act.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

The core issues transmitted to the Supreme Court were whether the trial court had complied with the summary-hearing requirements of Sec. 17, Rule 59 before issuing execution against the surety and whether the surety could raise the question of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance for the first time after fifteen years of active participation in the proceedings.

Supreme Court’s Analysis of Laches and Waiver

The Supreme Court accepted as undisputed that the original action sought PHP 1,908.00 and that under the Judiciary Act of 1948 such a sum fell within the exclusive original jurisdiction of inferior courts. The Court nevertheless held that the surety was barred by laches from raising the jurisdictional plea at that late hour. The Court emphasized that the surety became a quasi-party when it filed the counter-bond on July 31, 1948, thereby acquiring rights and assuming obligations in the pending case. The Court observed that the surety had elected to invoke the jurisdiction of the trial court repeatedly in pursuit of affirmative relief, had submitted to the court’s procedures, and had not asserted lack of jurisdiction until it received an adverse appellate decision. The Court treated that conduct as an inequitable attempt to accept favorable rulings and to attack jurisdiction when faced with an unfavorable result, citing precedent and authorities disfavoring that practice.

Supreme Court’s Ruling on the Summary Hearing Requirement

On the separate procedural contention, the Supreme Court reviewed and expressly adopted the reasoning of the Court of Appeals that the surety had adequate notice and opportunity to be heard. The record showed counsel requested time to answer and the court granted that time with an express order that the incident would be deemed submitted after the period; counsel filed no answer. The Court of Appeals had discussed the nature and purpose of a summary hearing under Sec. 17, Rule 59, and concluded that the surety had its day in court and could not complain of deprivation of a summary hearing where it was notified, appeared, and waived further proceedings by inaction. Th

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms