Ser

afi
nTi
j
am,
etal
.vs.Magdal
enoSi
bonghanoy
,etal
.G.
R.No.L-
21603.Apr
il15,
1968

TI
JAM v
s.SI
BONGHANOY(
23SCRA29)

FACTS:Ti
jam f
il
edforr
ecov
eryofP1,
908+l
egal
int
erestf
rom Si
bongahanoy
.Def
endant
sfi
l
eda
count
erbondwithMani
la

Sur
etyandFi del
i
tyCo( Sur
ety).Judgementwasi nf
avouroftheplainti
ff
s,awritofexecuti
on
wasissuedagainstthedefendant.Def
endantsmov edf
orwr i
tofexecut i
onagainstsur
etywhich
wasgranted.Suret
ymov edtoquasht hewritbutwasdenied,appealedtoCAwi thoutr
aisi
ngthe
i
ssueonl ackofjur
isdi
cti
on.

CAaf fi
rmedt heappealeddecisi
on.Suretyt henfi
ledMot iont oDismissont hegroundoflackof
j
urisdi
ctionagainstCFICebui nvi
ewoft heef fect
ivi
tyofJudi ciar
yActof1948amont hbefore
thefil
i
ngoft hepetit
ionforrecover
y.Actpl acedor i
ginalexclusiv
ejurisdi
cti
onofi nf
eri
orcourt
s
allci
vil
act i
onsfordemandsnotexceedi ng2, 000excl usi
veofi nter
est.CAsetasi deit
searl
ier
decisi
onandr ef
err
edthecaset oSCsincei thasexclusivejuri
sdicti
onov er"al
lcasesinwhich
thejuri
sdicti
onofanyinferi
orcourtisi
ni ssue.

I
SSUE:WONSuret
ybondisest
oppedf
rom quest
ioni
ngt
hej
uri
sdi
cti
onoft
heCFICebuf
ort
he
f
ir
stt
imeuponappeal
.YES

RATIO: SCbel i
evesthatt hatt heSur etyisnowbar redbyl achesf rom inv okingthispleaaf ter
al
mostf i
ft
eeny earsbef oret heSur etyfil
edit
smot i
ont odi smi ssr aisi
ngt hequest ionofl ackof
j
urisdictionforthefirsttime-Apar tymaybeest oppedorbar redf r om raisingaquest i
oni n
dif
ferentway sandf ordifferentr easons.Thuswespeakofest oppel i
npai s,orestoppel bydeed
orbyr ecor d,andofest oppel bylaches.Laches, i
nagener alsensei sfail
ureornegl ect,foran
unreasonabl eandunexpl ainedl engthoft i
me, todot hatwhi ch, byexer ci
singduedi l
igence,
couldorshoul dhavebeendoneear l
ier-Furt
hermor e,ithasal sobeenhel dt hataftervoluntar
il
y
submi ttingacauseandencount eringanadv ersedeci sionont hemer it
s, i
tistoolat eforthe
l
osert oquest i
onthej uri
sdict i
onorpoweroft hecour t- "undesi rablepr actice"ofapar t
y
submi ttinghiscasef ordeci sionandt henacceptingthej udgment , onlyiffavorable,and
att
acki ngi tf
orlackofj urisdicti
on, whenadv erse.
:Othermer i
tsont heappeal :Thesur etyinsistst hatthel owercour tshoul dhav egr antedi t
s
mot iontoquasht hewr i
tofexecut i
onbecauset hesamewasi ssuedwi thoutt hesummar y
hearing-Summar yhear ingi s"notintendedt obecar r
iedoni nt hef ormal manneri nwhi ch
ordinaryact i
onsar eprosecut ed"(83C. J.S.792) .Itis,rather,apr ocedurebywhi chaquest ioni
s
resolved"wi t
hdispat ch,withthel eastpossibl edel ay,andi npr ef erencetoor dinar ylegal and
regularjudici
alproceedi ngs"(Ibid,p.790).Whati sessent i
al i
st hat" t
hedef endanti snot ifi
edor
summonedt oappearandi sgi venanoppor tuni t
yt ohearwhati sur geduponhi m, andt o
i
nter poseadef ense, aft
erwhi chf oll
owsanadj udicati
onoft her ightsoft hepar ti
es-I nt hecase
atbar ,t
hesur etyhadbeennot if
iedofthepl aint i
ffs'mot i
onf orexecut i
onandoft hedat ewhen
thesamewoul dbesubmi ttedf orconsideration.I nfact,thesur et y
'scounsel waspr esentin
courtwhent hemot ionwascal led,andi twasuponhi sr equestt hatt hecour taquogav ehi ma
peri
odoff ourdayswi t
hinwhi cht ofil
eananswer .Yetheal lowedt hatper i
odt olapsewi thout
fi
li
ngananswerorobj ecti
on.Thesur etycannotnow, ther ef
or e, compl ainthati twasdepr i
vedof
i
tsdayi ncourt.

Theor
der
sappeal
edf
rom ar
eaf
fi
rmed.

I
JAM vs.SI
BONGHANOY(23SCRA29) G.R.
 No.
 L-
21450 
Apr
il
 15,
 1968Plai
ntif
fs-
appel
l
ees:
SERAFI
NTIJAM,ETAL.
Defendant
s:MAGDALENOSI BONGHANOYal i
asGAVI NO
SI
BONGHANOYandLUCIABAGUI O,Bondi
ngcompanyanddefendant-appel
lant:
MANILA
SURETYAND FI
DELI
TYCO.,I
NC.(CEBUBRANCH) .DI
ZON,J.
:

FACTS:

Theact ionatbar ,whichi sasuitf orcol lecti

onofasum ofmoneyi nthesum ofexact l
yP
1,908.00,excl
usiveofi nterestfi
l
edby  Ser afi
nTi j
am andFel ici
tasTagal ogagainst 
Spouses
Magdal enoSi bonghanoy andLuci aBagui o,wasor iginal
lyinstit
utedint heCourtofFirstInstance
ofCebuonJul y19,1948.Amont hpr iort othefil
ingoft hecompl aint
,theJudiciaryActof1948
(R.A.296)t ookeffectdepr ivi
ngt heCour tofFirstInstanceofor i
ginalj
ur i
sdi
cti
onov ercasesi n
whicht hedemand, exclusiveofi nterest, i
snotmor ethanP2, 000.00(Secs.44[c]and86[ b],
R.A.
296.)Thecasehasal readybeenpendi ngnowf oral most15y ears,andt hr
oughouttheent ir
e
proceedi ngtheappell
antnev err
ai sedt hequest i
onofj urisdict
ionunt i
lthereceiptoftheCour tof
Appeal s'adversedecision.Consideringt hatt heSupr emeCour thast heexclusiveappellat
e
j
ur i
sdicti
onov erallcasesi nwhi ch jurisdict
ionofanyi nferiorcourtisinissue,
 theCourtof
Appeal scerti
fiedthe caset othe Supr emeCour t
alongwi ththerecordsoft hecase