Primary Holding

A party may be barred by laches from invoking lack of jurisdiction if they have participated in proceedings for a considerable time and raised the jurisdictional question only after receiving an adverse decision.

Background

The case originated from a civil suit to recover money where attachment was issued but later discharged upon posting of a counter-bond by defendants through Manila Surety and Fidelity Co., Inc. After judgment and failed execution against defendants, plaintiffs sought to execute against the surety bond. The surety company raised jurisdictional questions only after adverse decisions and nearly 15 years of proceedings

Facts

• 1. Spouses Tijam filed a collection case for P1,908.00 against spouses Sibonghanoy
• 2. Court issued writ of attachment which was discharged when defendants posted counter-bond through Manila Surety
• 3. After favorable judgment for plaintiffs and failed execution against defendants, plaintiffs sought to execute against the surety bond
• 4. Surety opposed execution and filed various motions
• 5. After adverse Court of Appeals decision, surety questioned the jurisdiction for the first time after 15 years

Arguments of the Petitioners

• 1. Court of First Instance had no jurisdiction as amount was within jurisdiction of inferior courts per RA 296
• 2. Required summary hearing under Section 17, Rule 59 was not conducted
• 3. Separate judgment against surety was necessary to hold it liable

Arguments of the Respondents

• 1. No specific arguments stated in the case as respondents failed to file their brief

Issues

• 1. Whether the surety can question the court's jurisdiction after participating in proceedings for 15 years
• 2. Whether proper summary hearing was conducted before issuing execution against the surety
• 3. Whether separate judgment against surety is necessary

Ruling

• 1. Supreme Court ruled against the surety company, holding that:
• 2. Surety is barred by laches from questioning jurisdiction after 15 years of active participation
• 3. Summary hearing requirements were satisfied when surety was given opportunity to file answer
• 4. No separate judgment needed as bond automatically attaches upon failed execution against principal
• 5. Court emphasized that it would be inequitable to nullify all proceedings after such extensive participation

Doctrines

• 1. Supreme Court ruled against the surety company, holding that:
• 2. Surety is barred by laches from questioning jurisdiction after 15 years of active participation
• 3. Summary hearing requirements were satisfied when surety was given opportunity to file answer
• 4. No separate judgment needed as bond automatically attaches upon failed execution against principal
• 5. Court emphasized that it would be inequitable to nullify all proceedings after such extensive participation

Key Excerpts

• 1. Supreme Court ruled against the surety company, holding that:
• 2. Surety is barred by laches from questioning jurisdiction after 15 years of active participation
• 3. Summary hearing requirements were satisfied when surety was given opportunity to file answer
• 4. No separate judgment needed as bond automatically attaches upon failed execution against principal
• 5. Court emphasized that it would be inequitable to nullify all proceedings after such extensive participation

Precedents Cited

• 1. Dean vs. Dean (136 Or. 694) - party cannot invoke jurisdiction then repudiate it after obtaining relief
• 2. Pease vs. Rathbun-Jones (243 U.S. 273) - too late to question jurisdiction after adverse decision
• 3. Littleton vs. Burgess (16 Wyo. 58) - improper to affirm jurisdiction for relief then deny it to escape penalty

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

• 1. Republic Act No. 296 (Judiciary Act of 1948) - Section 88 on jurisdictional amounts
• 2. Rules of Court, Rule 59, Section 17 - on execution against surety bonds
• 3. Rules of Court, Rule 59, Section 12 - on discharge of attachment through counter-bond