G.R. No. 147406 - CERVANTES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

VENANCIO FIGUEROA Y CERVANTES v.
PEOPLE
GR Number: G.R. No. 147406
Doctrine:
The general rule is that the issue of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings,
even on appeal, and is not lost by waiver or by estoppel. Such jurisdiction is conferred by law
and not by mere consent of the parties.
Facts:
On August 19, 1998, RTC convicted the petitioner of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.
In his appeal before the CA, the petitioner questioned for the first time the RTC’s jurisdiction.
CA, however, considered the petitioner to have actively participated in the trial and to have
belatedly attacked the jurisdiction of RTC; thus, he was already estopped by laches from
asserting the RTC’s lack of jurisdiction. CA affirmed RTC’s decision.
[Sidenote: While not an issue, the SC clarified that the jurisdiction of the court to hear and decide
a case is conferred by the law in force at the time of the institution of the action, unless such
statute provides for a retroactive application thereof. In this case, at the time the criminal
information for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide with violation of the Automobile Law
(now Land Transportation and Traffic Code) was filed, Section 32(2) of Batas Pambansa (B.P.)
Blg. 129 had already been amended by Republic Act No. 7691. And so as the imposable penalty
for the crime charged is prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods (imprisonment
for 2 years 4 months and 1 day, to 6 years), jurisdiction to hear and try the same is conferred on
MTC. Therefore, the RTC does not have jurisdiction over the case.]
Petitioner filed the instant petition for review on certiorari. While both the appellate court and the
Solicitor General acknowledge the fact that RTC did not have jurisdiction, they nevertheless are
of the position that the principle of estoppel by laches has already precluded the petitioner from
questioning the jurisdiction of the RTC, the trial went on for 4 years with the petitioner actively
participating therein and without him ever raising the jurisdictional infirmity. The petitioner, for
his part, counters that the lack of jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter may be raised at
any time even for the first time on appeal. As undue delay is further absent herein, the principle
of laches will not be applicable.
Issues:
1. WON the RTC of Bulacan has jurisdiction. – NO
2. WON the principle of estoppel by laches has already precluded the petitioner from
questioning the jurisdiction of the RTC. – NO
1. The jurisdiction of the court to hear and decide a case is conferred by the law in force at the
time of the institution of the action, unless such statute provides for a retroactive application
thereof.
In this case, at the time the criminal information for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide
with violation of the Automobile Law (now Land Transportation and Traffic Code) was filed,
Section 32(2) of B.P. Blg. 129 had already been amended by R.A. No. 7691.[1]
As the imposable penalty for the crime charged herein is prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods or imprisonment for 2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 6 years, jurisdiction to
hear and try the same is conferred on the Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs). Therefore, the RTC of
Bulacan does not have jurisdiction over this case.
2. WON the principle of estoppel by laches has already precluded the petitioner from
questioning the jurisdiction of the RTC. – NO
The trial went on for 4 years with the petitioner actively participating therein and without him
ever raising the jurisdictional infirmity.
The general rule should be, as it has always been, that the issue of jurisdiction may be raised at
any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal, and is not lost by waiver or by estoppel—estoppel
by laches, to bar a litigant from asserting the court’s absence or lack of jurisdiction, only
supervenes in exceptional cases similar to the factual milieu of Tijam v. Sibonghanoy.
The fact that a person attempts to invoke unauthorized jurisdiction of a court does not estop him
from thereafter challenging its jurisdiction over the subject matter, since such jurisdiction must
be conferred by law and not by mere consent of the parties.
No considerable period had yet elapsed for laches to attach. True, delay alone, though
unreasonable, will not sustain the defense of “estoppel by laches” unless it further appears that
the party, knowing his rights, has not sought to enforce them until the condition of the party
pleading laches has in good faith become so changed that he cannot be restored to his former
state. In applying the principle of estoppel by laches in the exceptional case of Sibonghanoy, it
has already been more or less 15 years. The same, however, does not obtain in the instant case.
Moreover, a judgment rendered without jurisdiction over the subject matter is void. No laches
will even attach when the judgment is null and void for want of jurisdiction.

G.R. No. 147406 - CERVANTES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 147406 - CERVANTES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 147406 - CERVANTES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VENANCIO FIGUEROA Y CERVANTES v.

You might also like