Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PANTRANCO NORTH EXPRESS v. CA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 186366 2013-07-03	HEIRS OF JOSE FERNANDO v. REYNALDO DE BELEN PEREZ, J.
Similarly, as this Court held in Pantranco North Express, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[34] participation in all stages of the case before the trial court, that included invoking its authority in asking for affirmative relief, effectively barred the respondent by estoppel from challenging the court's jurisdiction. The Court has consistently upheld the doctrine that while jurisdiction may be assailed at any stage, a litigant who participated in the court proceedings by filing pleadings and presenting his evidence cannot later on question the trial court's jurisdiction when judgement unfavorable to him is rendered.
	GR No. 167224 2007-09-21	NOLITO L. MAÑAGO v. COMELEC QUISUMBING, J.
In Soller, the protestee timely raised the issue of non-payment in a motion to dismiss. Such, however, was not the case here. Mañago filed an Answer with Counter-Protest on July 30, 2002, actively participated during the hearings and revision of ballots, and then filed his Formal Offer of Exhibits, but never assailed the proceedings of the trial court for lack of jurisdiction. He only raised the issue after the court promulgated a decision adverse to his interest. Estoppel thus set in in this case. In Pantranco North Express, Inc. v. Court of Appeals[13] we held:The petitioner raised the issue regarding jurisdiction for the first time in its Brief filed with the public respondent [Court of Appeals]....After vigorously participating in all stages of the case before the trial court and even invoking the trial court's authority in order to ask for affirmative relief, the petitioner is effectively barred by estoppel from challenging the trial court's jurisdiction.[14]
	GR NO. 171532 2007-08-07	UNITED OVERSEAS BANK v. JUDGE REYNALDO ROS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Of significant application in the case at bar is our ruling in the case of Pantranco North Express, Inc. v. Court of Appeals[37]:[P]articipating in all stages of the case before the trial court and even invoking the trial court's authority in order to ask for affirmative relief, the petitioner is effectively barred by estoppel from challenging the court's jurisdiction.
	GR NO. 167848 2007-04-27	BANK OF COMMERCE v. SPS. PRUDENCIO SAN PABLO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Participation in all stages before the trial court, that included invoking its authority in asking for affirmative relief, effectively bars the party by estoppel from challenging the court's jurisdiction.[25] The Court frowns upon the undesirable practice of a party participating in the proceedings and submitting his case for decision and then accepting the judgment, only if favorable, and attacking it for lack of jurisdiction when adverse.[26]
	GR NO. 136325 2005-08-29	MANUEL M. SERRANO v. EUGENIO C. DELICA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading, but the payment of the prescribed docket fees that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action.[6]
	GR No. 136325 2005-07-29	MANUEL M. SERRANO v. EUGENIO C. DELICA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading, but the payment of the prescribed docket fees that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action.[6]
	GR No. 122824 2001-09-26	AURORA F. IGNACIO v. VALERIANO BASILIO QUEZON CITY QUISUMBING, J.
On the second issue, bar by laches appears particularly pertinent in this controversy. Laches is meant the negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it.[7] It does not involve mere lapse or passage of time, but is principally an impediment to the assertion or enforcement of a right, which has become under the circumstances inequitable or unfair to permit.[8] While a question of jurisdiction may be raised at any time, a party may be barred from raising it on ground of laches or estoppel.[9]