Apacible vs. People of the Philippines and San Miguel Corporation

A party may be barred by laches from invoking lack of jurisdiction due to non-payment of docket fees if they have actively participated in the proceedings and raised the objection only after an unreasonable and unexplained length of time.

Rosario M. Apacible (petitioner) was a dealer of San Miguel Corporation (SMC). After her dealership was terminated for delinquency, she executed an Undertaking acknowledging an indebtedness of ₱3,957,173.60 and issued eight post-dated checks as payment. Four of these checks, each for ₱500,000.00, were dishonored upon presentment due to "Account Closed" and "DAIF." SMC filed a complaint-affidavit, leading to the filing of four Informations for violation of B.P. 22 before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) on July 31, 2003.

• Nature of the Obligation: Petitioner Apacible acknowledged a debt to SMC of ₱3,957,173.60 via an Undertaking dated December 16, 1999, and issued eight post-dated checks as payment.
• Dishonor and Demand: The four subject checks, each for ₱500,000.00, were dishonored upon presentment. SMC sent several demand letters, which the MTCC later found were not sufficiently proven to have been received by petitioner.
• Criminal Proceedings and Acquittal: The MTCC acquitted petitioner of the B.P. 22 charges upon granting her demurrer to evidence, finding the prosecution failed to prove receipt of a notice of dishonor beyond reasonable doubt. The court retained jurisdiction over the civil aspect.
• Civil Liability Adjudication: Despite petitioner's numerous motions challenging jurisdiction and seeking postponements, the MTCC proceeded, deemed the case submitted for decision, and ultimately held petitioner civilly liable for the total amount of the checks.
• Jurisdictional Challenge on Appeal: For the first time in a Supplemental Appeal Memorandum before the RTC, petitioner argued the MTCC never acquired jurisdiction over the civil case because SMC failed to pay the required docket fees upon filing the complaint, as mandated by Section 1(b), Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure for B.P. 22 cases.

• Lack of Jurisdiction: Petitioner argued that the MTCC never acquired jurisdiction over the civil aspect of the case because SMC failed to pay the docket fees upon filing the complaint, a mandatory requirement under the rules for B.P. 22 cases.
• Non-Waivable Defect: Petitioner contended that jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and cannot be waived; hence, the issue could be raised at any time, rendering all proceedings void.
• Prescription: Petitioner implied that the civil action had prescribed, making any late payment of docket fees ineffective to confer jurisdiction.

• Duty of the Clerk of Court: SMC argued that it was the responsibility of the Clerk of Court to assess and collect the docket fees, and that SMC had manifested its willingness to pay at any time.
• Lien on Judgment: SMC contended that any unpaid docket fees should be treated as a first lien on the judgment award, citing jurisprudence that allows for liberal application of the rules.
• Laches/Estoppel: SMC implicitly argued that petitioner, by actively participating in the proceedings for years and seeking affirmative relief (like the dismissal of the criminal case), was estopped from belatedly questioning jurisdiction.

• Jurisdictional Prerequisite: Whether the MTCC acquired jurisdiction over the civil aspect of the B.P. 22 case despite the private complainant's non-payment of docket fees upon filing.
• Application of Laches: Whether the petitioner is barred by laches from raising the issue of non-payment of docket fees for the first time on appeal after eleven years of active litigation.

• Jurisdictional Prerequisite: The general rule that payment of docket fees is jurisdictional does not apply rigidly in this case. While the rules for B.P. 22 cases require payment upon filing, the Court has allowed liberal interpretation in certain circumstances. The failure to pay was not solely the fault of SMC, as the Clerk of Court's assessment notice was not shown to have been received. Moreover, the RTC correctly treated the unpaid fees as a lien on the judgment.
• Application of Laches: The petitioner is barred by laches from assailing the court's jurisdiction. She actively participated in the proceedings for over eleven years, filed numerous motions, successfully obtained an acquittal via demurrer, and only raised the jurisdictional issue in a supplemental memorandum on appeal. This conduct falls squarely within the doctrine of estoppel by laches established in Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, which prevents a party from belatedly invoking lack of jurisdiction after having invoked the court's authority to seek affirmative relief.

• Estoppel by Laches (Tijam Doctrine) — A party may be barred from raising the issue of lack of jurisdiction if, through their own inaction and unreasonable delay, they have led the other party and the court to believe the issue has been waived. The requisites are: (1) a statutory right to question jurisdiction; (2) failure to invoke that right; (3) an unreasonable lapse of time; (4) active participation in the case seeking affirmative relief; (5) knowledge of the jurisdictional facts; and (6) that allowing the belated objection would cause irreparable damage to the other party who relied on the implicit waiver. The Court applied this doctrine to foreclose petitioner's eleventh-hour challenge.
• Docket Fees as First Lien — In cases where the civil action is deemed instituted with the criminal action (like B.P. 22 cases), if the filing fees are not paid upon filing but the court proceeds to adjudicate the civil liability, the unpaid fees shall constitute a first lien on the monetary award. This tempers the strict rule on jurisdictional fees with considerations of equity and practicality.

• "Petitioner cannot, on one hand, reap the benefits of the MTCC's jurisdiction by having the criminal aspect of her case dismissed through the MTCC's grant of her demurrer to evidence, and, on the other hand, impugn the same jurisdiction after 11 years from the filing of the Informations for private respondent's non-payment of docket fees." — This passage encapsulates the Court's reasoning on estoppel and the inequity of petitioner's selective challenge to jurisdiction.
• "Laches, in general sense, is failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable length of time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it." — Quoted from Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, this defines the core principle applied to bar the jurisdictional challenge.

• Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, 131 Phil. 556 (1968) — The foundational case on estoppel by laches in jurisdictional challenges. Cited to establish that a party who actively participates in proceedings and delays raising a jurisdictional defect for an unreasonable time is barred from doing so later.
• Amoguis v. Ballado, G.R. No. 189626, August 20, 2018 — Cited to provide a detailed, modern framework for the application of the Tijam doctrine, listing its six requisites which the Court found present in this case.
• Hyatt Industrial Manufacturing Corp. v. Asia Dynamic Electrix Corp., 503 Phil. 411 (2005) — Cited to explain the rationale behind the rule requiring payment of docket fees upon filing in B.P. 22 cases, namely to declog court dockets and prevent the use of criminal complaints as free collection tools.
• Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. v. Asuncion, 252 Phil. 280 (1989) — Distinguished. This case allowed liberal treatment for underpayment of fees where there was willingness to pay. The Court noted the present case differed as there was no payment at all, but still applied lien doctrine.

• Section 1(b), Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Provides that the criminal action for violation of B.P. 22 is deemed to include the corresponding civil action, and requires the offended party to pay in full the filing fees based on the amount of the check upon filing. This was the rule petitioner argued was violated, depriving the court of jurisdiction.

• Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen (Chairperson)
• Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting
• Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez (no relation to the ponente)
• Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr.