G.R. No.

L-40527 June 30, 1976

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
vs.
HERMOGENES MARIANO and HON. AMBROSIO M. GERALDEZ, in his capacity as Presiding
Judge of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, Branch V, respondents.
Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, Assistant Solicitor General Nathanael P. Pano, Jr., Solicitor
Oswaldo D. Agcaoili, Provincial P.C. Kliachko and Assistant Provincial Fiscal C. G. Perfecto for
petitioner.
Eustaquio Evangelista for respondent Hermogenes Mariano.
MUÑOZ PALMA, J:

FACTS:

Hermogenes Mariano, was accused of estafa by the office of the Provincial Fiscal of Bulacan on the
grounds of misappropriating and converting for his own personal use the items valued at $717.50 or P4,
797.35, belonging to USAID/NEC.
Mariano thru his counsel has filed a motion to quash the Information that the Court of First Instance of
Bulacan has no jurisdiction over the criminal case against the Respondent because the involved items
were also the subject matter of the Information of the case against Mayor Nolasco and the case had
already been decided by the Military Tribunal.
Respondent Judge issued an Order granting the motion to quash on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
But, the people now seeks a review of the aforesaid Order and presents the sole issue of jurisdiction of
respondent Court over the estafa case filed against respondent Mariano. Thus, this petition for
certiorari.

ISSUE:

RULING:

Anent the issue of estoppel, we earlier ruled that the movants are barred from questioning the
jurisdiction of the trial court because of their participation in the proceedings therein. In passing upon
this issue, we take heed from the pronouncement of this Court in the recent case Vargas v. Caminas:16

The Court finds that Tijam is not applicable in the present case. The general rule is that lack of
jurisdiction of a court may be raised at any stage of the proceedings. In Calimlim v. Ramirez, the Court
stated that Tijam is an exception to the general rule because of the presence of laches:
A rule that had been settled by unquestioned acceptance and upheld in decisions so numerous to cite is
that the jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter of the action is a matter of law and may not be
conferred by consent or agreement of the parties. The lack of jurisdiction of a court may be raised at any
stage of the proceedings, even on appeal. This doctrine has been qualified by recent pronouncements
which stemmed principally from the ruling in the cited case of [Tijam]. It is to be regretted, however,
that the holding in said case had been applied to situations which were obviously not contemplated
therein. The exceptional circumstance involved in [Tijam] which justified the departure from the
accepted concept of non-waivability of objection to jurisdiction has been ignored and, instead a blanket
doctrine had been repeatedly upheld that rendered the supposed ruling in [Tijam] not as the exception,
but rather the general rule, virtually overthrowing altogether the time-honored principle that the issue
of jurisdiction is not lost by waiver or by estoppel.

In Tijam, the lack of jurisdiction was raised for the first time in a motion to dismiss filed almost fifteen
(15) years after the questioned ruling had been rendered. Hence, the Court ruled that the issue of
jurisdiction may no longer be raised for being barred by laches.lawph!1

The circumstances of the present case are different from Tijam. Spouses Vargas raised the issue of
jurisdiction before the trial court rendered its decision. They continued to raise the issue in their appeal
before the Court of Appeals and this Court. Hence, it cannot be said that laches has set in. The exception
in Tijam finds no application in this case and the general rule must apply, that the question of
jurisdiction of a court may be raised at any stage of the proceedings. Spouses Vargas are therefore not
estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the trial court.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Motion for Reconsideration filed by John Lu Ym and Ludo &
LuYm Development Corporation is GRANTED. The Decision of this Court dated August 26, 2008 is
RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE. The complaint in SRC Case No. 021-CEB, now on appeal with the Court of
Appeals in CA G.R. CV No. 81163, is DISMISSED.