Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 170251 2011-06-01	CELIA S. VDA. DE HERRERA v. EMELITA BERNARDO PERALTA, J.
Since the COSLAP has no jurisdiction over the action, all the proceedings therein, including the decision rendered, are null and void.[14] A judgment issued by a quasi-judicial body without jurisdiction is void. It cannot be the source of any right or create any obligation.[15] All acts performed pursuant to it and all claims emanating from it have no legal effect.[16] Having no legal effect, the situation is the same as it would be as if there was no judgment at all. It leaves the parties in the position they were before the proceedings.[17]
	GR No. 181969 2009-10-02	ROMLAGO v. SIEMENS BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES NACHURA, J.
We had emphasized in Figueroa v. People[40] and recently in Apolonia Banayad Frianela v. Servillano Banayad, Jr.[41] that estoppel by laches supervenes in exceptional cases similar to the factual milieu in Tijam v. Sibonghanoy. It is, therefore, too late in the day for ROMAGO to repudiate the jurisdiction of PDRCI over the dispute, and consequently, of the RTC to confirm the decision.