Tijam v. Sibonghanoy

On July 19, 1948, about a month after the Judiciary Act of 1948 took effect, the spouses Tijam sued the spouses Sibonghanoy in the Court of First Instance of Cebu to collect P1,908.00. A writ of attachment issued but was dissolved when the defendants filed a counter-bond with Manila Surety and Fidelity Co. (the Surety). After judgment for the plaintiffs became final, execution against the defendants was returned unsatisfied, and the plaintiffs moved for execution against the counter-bond. The Surety opposed and asked to be relieved of liability; the court denied the first motion for lack of prior demand. After demand, a second motion was filed; the Surety's counsel obtained time to answer but filed nothing, and the writ issued. The Surety's motion to quash (for lack of the summary hearing under Section 17, Rule 59) was denied, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Only then, on January 12, 1963, did the Surety move to dismiss, arguing that under the Judiciary Act of 1948 the case, involving less than P2,000.00, fell within the exclusive original jurisdiction of inferior courts. The Court of Appeals set aside its decision and certified the case to the Supreme Court.

1. 1Whether the Surety may assail the Court of First Instance's lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter for the first time after an adverse decision of the Court of Appeals, some fifteen years after the case began.
2. 2Whether the writ of execution against the counter-bond was validly issued without a formal summary hearing under Section 17, Rule 59 of the Rules of Court.

No, the Surety is barred; and yes, the writ was valid. The Court accepted that the P1,908.00 claim was within the original exclusive jurisdiction of inferior courts, and that jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and its absence "may be raised at any stage of the proceedings." Nevertheless, it held the Surety "barred by laches from invoking this plea at this late hour." The Surety had been a quasi-party since it filed its counter-bond on July 31, 1948; it sought affirmative relief (release from the bond) in the trial court, appealed on other grounds, and raised jurisdiction only after the Court of Appeals ruled against it. Laches is failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do what should have been done earlier. Citing American authorities and its own rulings frowning on the "undesirable practice" of accepting a judgment if favorable and attacking it for lack of jurisdiction when adverse, the Court held that a party cannot invoke a court's jurisdiction to secure affirmative relief and afterwards repudiate it. Annulling everything would force the judgment creditors "to go up their Calvary once more." On the merits, the Court adopted the Court of Appeals decision: a summary hearing needs only notice and an opportunity to be heard, which the Surety had and waived; and under Sections 12 and 17 of Rule 59, the counter-bond's liability attaches once execution against the defendants is returned unsatisfied, and if the surety fails to pay on demand, execution may issue against it without a separate judgment against the surety. The orders appealed from were affirmed, with costs against the Surety.