This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-06-01 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The rule is that the active participation of the party against whom the action was brought, coupled with his failure to object to the jurisdiction of the court or administrative body where the action is pending, is tantamount to an invocation of that jurisdiction and a willingness to abide by the resolution of the case and will bar said party from later on impugning the court or body's jurisdiction.[42] Based on the preceding discussion, this Court holds that MEGAN's challenge to Atty. Sabig's authority and the RTC's jurisdiction was a mere afterthought after having received an unfavorable decision from the RTC. Certainly, it would be unjust and inequitable to the other parties if this Court were to grant such a belated jurisdictional challenge. | |||||
|
2005-07-29 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The CA Fifteenth Division reversed the Decision of NLRC, and reinstated the earlier ruling of the Labor Arbiter. Adopting the doctrines by this Court in the cases of Alfredo Marquez v. Sec. of Labor[14] and ABS-CBN Supervisors Employees Union Members v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation,[15] the CA ruled that the active participation of the party against whom the action was brought, coupled with his failure to object to the jurisdiction of the court or quasi-judicial body where the action is pending, is tantamount to an invocation of that jurisdiction and a willingness to abide by the resolution of the case and will bar said party from later on impugning the court or body's jurisdiction. The appellate court then disposed the case in this wise: | |||||