This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2008-07-14 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Yet, in subsequent cases decided after Calimlim, which by sheer volume are too plentiful to mention, the Sibonghanoy doctrine, as foretold in Calimlim, became the rule rather than the exception. As such, in Soliven v. Fastforms Philippines, Inc.,[25] the Court ruled:While it is true that jurisdiction may be raised at any time, "this rule presupposes that estoppel has not supervened." In the instant case, respondent actively participated in all stages of the proceedings before the trial court and invoked its authority by asking for an affirmative relief. Clearly, respondent is estopped from challenging the trial court's jurisdiction, especially when an adverse judgment has been rendered. In PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, we held: | |||||
|
2007-04-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| While it is true that jurisdiction may be raised at any time, "this rule presupposes that estoppel has not supervened." In the instant case, respondent actively participated in all stages of the proceedings before the trial court and invoked its authority by asking for an affirmative relief. Clearly, respondent is estopped from challenging the trial court's jurisdiction, especially when the adverse judgment is rendered.[24] | |||||
|
2005-04-12 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| After recognizing the jurisdiction of the trial court by seeking affirmative relief in their motion to serve supplemental pleading upon private respondents, petitioners are effectively barred by estoppel from challenging the trial court's jurisdiction.[38] If a party invokes the jurisdiction of a court, he cannot thereafter challenge the court's jurisdiction in the same case.[39] To rule otherwise would amount to speculating on the fortune of litigation, which is against the policy of the Court.[40] | |||||
|
2005-01-19 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| We stressed in Marie Antoinette R. Soliven vs. Fastforms Philippines, Inc.[32] that while it is a settled rule that jurisdictional questions may be raised at any time, an exception arises where estoppel has supervened,[33] as in this case. We reiterate that it is only now, before this Court, that petitioner is questioning the jurisdiction of the trial court. After submitting its cause voluntarily to its jurisdiction by actively participating in all stages of the proceedings before it and invoking its authority by asking for an affirmative relief, petitioner is estopped from challenging its jurisdiction, especially when an adverse judgment has been rendered.[34] In PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation vs. Court of Appeals,[35] we held:"Moreover, we note that petitioner did not question at all the jurisdiction of the lower court x x x in its answers to both the amended complaint and the second amended complaint. It did so only in its motion for reconsideration of the decision of the lower court after it had received an adverse decision. As this Court held in Pantranco North Express, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 105180, July 5, 1993, 224 SCRA 477, 491), participation in all stages of the case before the trial court, that included invoking its authority in asking for affirmative relief, effectively barred petitioner by estoppel from challenging the court's jurisdiction. Notably, from the time it filed its answer to the second amended complaint on April 16, 1985, petitioner did not question the lower court's jurisdiction. It was only on December 29, 1989 when it filed its motion for reconsideration of the lower court's decision that petitioner raised the question of the lower court's lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner thus foreclosed its right to raise the issue of jurisdiction by its own inaction." (underscoring ours) | |||||