Scribd
Upload
162 views2 pages

Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy

This case involves a dispute over a writ of execution issued against a surety bond. Tijam filed a case against Sibongahanoy for recovery of P1,908 plus interest, and received a judgment in their favor. When the defendant did not pay, Tijam requested a writ of execution against the surety bond. The surety appealed the denial of its motion to quash the writ. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision initially. However, the surety then argued the court lacked jurisdiction due to a recent law, and the Court of Appeals agreed and referred the case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the surety was barred by laches from challenging jurisdiction over 15 years later,

Uploaded by

ronald
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
162 views2 pages

Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy

This case involves a dispute over a writ of execution issued against a surety bond. Tijam filed a case against Sibongahanoy for recovery of P1,908 plus interest, and received a judgment in their favor. When the defendant did not pay, Tijam requested a writ of execution against the surety bond. The surety appealed the denial of its motion to quash the writ. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision initially. However, the surety then argued the court lacked jurisdiction due to a recent law, and the Court of Appeals agreed and referred the case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the surety was barred by laches from challenging jurisdiction over 15 years later,

Uploaded by

ronald
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

TIJAM vs.

SIBONGHANOY (23 SCRA 29)


(Question on Court of First Instance's* Jurisdiction)
Digested Case

FACTS:
Tijam filed for recovery of P1,908 + legal interest from Sibongahanoy. Judgement was in
favour of the plaintiffs, a writ of execution was issued against the defendant. Defendants
moved for writ of execution against surety which was granted.

The Court rendered judgment in favor of Tijam and, after the same had become final and
executory, the Court issued a writ of execution against Sibongahanoy.

The writ having been returned unsatisfied, Tijam moved for the issuance of a writ of
execution against the Surety’s bond, against which the Surety filed a written opposition. The
Surety prayed the Court not only to deny the motion for execution against its counter-bond
but also to relieve the herein bonding company of its liability. The Court denied the motion.

Subsequently, the Surety moved to quash the writ on the ground that the same was issued
without the required summary hearing.

As the Court denied the motion, the Surety appealed to the Court of Appeals from such
order of denial and from the one denying its motion for reconsideration.

Surety moved to quash the writ but was denied, appealed to CA without raising the issue on
lack of jurisdiction.

CA affirmed the appealed decision. Surety then filed Motion to Dismiss on the ground of lack
of jurisdiction against CFI Cebu in view of the effectivity of Judiciary Act of 1948 a month
before the filing of the petition for recovery. Act placed original exclusive jurisdiction of
inferior courts all civil actions for demands not exceeding 2,000 exclusive of interest. CA set
aside its earlier decision and referred the case to SC since it has exclusive jurisdiction over
"all cases in which the jurisdiction of any inferior court is in issue.

ISSUE:
WON Surety bond is estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the CFI Cebu for the first
time upon appeal.

HELD:
YES, SC believes that that the Surety is now barred by laches from invoking this plea after
almost fifteen years before the Surety filed its motion to dismiss raising the question of lack
of jurisdiction for the first time - A party may be estopped or barred from raising a question
in different ways and for different reasons. Thus we speak of estoppel in pais, or estoppel by
deed or by record, and of estoppel by laches. Laches, in a 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 - Furthermore, it has also been held
that after voluntarily submitting a cause and encountering an adverse decision on the
merits, it is too late for the loser to question the jurisdiction or power of the court -
"undesirable practice" of a party submitting his case for decision and then accepting the
judgment, only if favorable, and attacking it for lack of jurisdiction, when adverse.
: Other merits on the appeal : The surety insists that the lower court should have granted
its motion to quash the writ of execution because the same was issued without the
summary hearing - Summary hearing is "not intended to be carried on in the formal manner
in which ordinary actions are prosecuted" (83 C.J.S. 792). It is, rather, a procedure by
which a question is resolved "with dispatch, with the least possible delay, and in preference
to ordinary legal and regular judicial proceedings" (Ibid, p. 790). What is essential is that
"the defendant is notified or summoned to appear and is given an opportunity to hear what
is urged upon him, and to interpose a defense, after which follows an adjudication of the
rights of the parties - In the case at bar, the surety had been notified of the plaintiffs'
motion for execution and of the date when the same would be submitted for consideration.
In fact, the surety's counsel was present in court when the motion was called, and it was
upon his request that the court a quo gave him a period of four days within which to file an
answer. Yet he allowed that period to lapse without filing an answer or objection. The surety
cannot now, therefore, complain that it was deprived of its day in court.

The orders appealed from are affirmed.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

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

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy