FIGUEROA V.

PEOPLE

G.R. No. 147406 / JULY 14, 2008 / NACHURA, J. / CIVPRO Effect of estoppel
on objections to jurisdiction / MEEMARCILLA
NATURE
Petition for review on certiorari
PETITIONERS
Venancio Figueroa y Cervantes
RESPONDENTS
People of the Philippines
SUMMARY. An information for reckless imprudence resulting in
homicide was filed against the petitioner before the RTC. Petitioner
questioned the RTCs jurisdiction on appeal. CA affirmed the conviction
saying that petitioner is already estopped by laches from questioning
the jurisdiction. SC granted the petition for certiorari because the issue
of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings.
DOCTRINE. The general rule is that the issue of jurisdiction may be
raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal, and is not lost
by waiver or by estoppel. Such jurisdiction is conferred by law and not
by mere consent of the parties
FACTS.
An information for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide was
filed against the petitioner before the RTC of Bulacan.
Trial on the merits ensued and the trial court convicted the petitioner as
charged. In his appeal before the CA, the petitioner questioned for the
first time the trial courts jurisdiction.
The appellate court considered the petitioner to have actively participated
in the trial and to have belatedly attacked the jurisdiction of the RTC;
thus, he was already estopped by laches from asserting the trial
courts lack of jurisdiction. CA affirmed the petitioners conviction but
modified the penalty imposed and the damages awarded.
Petitioner filed the instant petition for review on certiorari
ISSUES & RATIO.
1. WON the RTC of Bulacan has jurisdiction. NO
The jurisdiction of the court to hear and decide a case is conferred
by the law in force at the time of the institution of the action,
unless such statute provides for a retroactive application thereof.
In this case, at the time the criminal information for reckless imprudence
resulting in homicide with violation of the Automobile Law (now Land
Transportation and Traffic Code) was filed, Section 32(2) of Batas
Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 129 had already been amended by Republic Act No.
7691.1

1 Sec. 32. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Criminal Cases.Except in cases falling within the
exclusive original jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and the Sandiganbayan, the
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
shall exercise:x x x x
(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with imprisonment not
exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the amount of fine, and regardless of other

As the imposable penalty for the crime charged herein is prision

correccional in its medium and maximum periods or imprisonment for 2
years, 4 months and 1 day to 6 years, jurisdiction to hear and try the same
is conferred on the Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs). Therefore, the RTC of
Bulacan does not have jurisdiction over this case.
2. WON the principle of estoppel by laches has already precluded
the petitioner from questioning the jurisdiction of the RTC. NO
The trial went on for 4 years with the petitioner actively participating
therein and without him ever raising the jurisdictional infirmity.
The general rule is that the issue of jurisdiction may be raised at any
stage of the proceedings, even on appeal, and is not lost by waiver or by
estoppelestoppel by laches, to bar a litigant from asserting the courts
absence or lack of jurisdiction, only supervenes in exceptional cases
similar to the factual milieu of Tijam v. Sibonghanoy.
The fact that a person attempts to invoke unauthorized jurisdiction of a
court does not estop him from thereafter challenging its jurisdiction over
the subject matter, since such jurisdiction must be conferred by law
and not by mere consent of the parties.
No considerable period had yet elapsed for laches to attach. True, delay
alone, though unreasonable, will not sustain the defense of estoppel by
laches unless it further appears that the party, knowing his rights, has not
sought to enforce them until the condition of the party pleading laches has
in good faith become so changed that he cannot be restored to his former
state. In applying the principle of estoppel by laches in the exceptional
case of Sibonghanoy, it has already been more or less 15 years. The same,
however, does not obtain in the instant case.
Moreover, a judgment rendered without jurisdiction over the
subject matter is void. No laches will even attach when the judgment is
null and void for want of jurisdiction.
DECISION.
Petition granted. Criminal Case No. 2235-M-94 is dismissed without
prejudice.

imposable accessory or other penalties, including the civil liability arising from such
offenses or predicated thereon, irrespective of kind, nature, value or amount thereof:
Provided, however, That in offenses involving damage to property through criminal
negligence, they shall have exclusive original jurisdiction thereof.