We often hear people talk about protecting or asserting their “rights”. In the olden days, this concept was almost inexistent. Thanks to that episode in the middle ages where the Magna Carta or the Great Charter was agreed upon by King John of England and his barons. It was a document narrating the rights of the subjects against the almost unlimited power of the king over them. The absence of any limit on the power or action of the monarchy at that time meant that the king was in fact above the law and it was severely abused. The barons resisted and in order to prevent the kingdom from plunging into chaos, King John signed the Charter which imposed certain limits upon the king’s power. The concept that one’s home is his castle came from the Magna Carta. This gave birth to the present rule that agents of the state cannot enter a home without the owner’s consent and any evidence obtained during the same cannot be used as evidence in court. But our rights can in fact be waived either willingly or unwillingly. Our civil rights when not invoked at the proper time can be lost through laches.
Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy
The case of Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy is a landmark case that all law students study especially in civil procedure. It is one of the exceptions to the general rule that no valid decision can be rendered by a court that has no jurisdiction over the case. Spouses Serafin Tijam and Felicitas Tagalog filed a civil case for collection of a certain sum of money against spouses Magdaleno Sibonghanoy and Lucia Baguio. After trial, the Court of First Instance (CFI) rendered a decision against spouses Tijam. A writ of execution was later issued and after it was returned unsatisfied, spouses Tijam moved for the issuance of a writ of execution against the surety bond. After filing its opposition the CFI rendered a writ of execution against the surety. The latter appealed to the Court of Appeals but the decision was affirmed and instead of filing a motion for reconsideration, the surety filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction which is being raised for the very first time. The amount claimed by Tijam is not within the jurisdiction of the CFI.
The CFI Decision is Affirmed Due to Laches
The Supreme Court in this exceptional case held that the surety cannot now raise the issue of lack of jurisdiction. The Court said: “True also is the rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred upon the courts exclusively by law, and as the lack of it affects the very authority of the court to take cognizance of the case, the objection may be raised at any stage of the proceedings. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case — which shall forthwith be set forth — We are of the opinion that the Surety is now barred by laches from invoking this plea at this late hour for the purpose of annuling everything done heretofore in the case with its active participation.” The surety participated in the proceedings and had the opportunity to raise the issue of lack of jurisdiction but chose not to and therefore it is now considered to have abandoned its right to assert the same. “Laches, in a general sense is failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it”. Here, the Court recognized that grave injustice would be created against the spouses if the surety’s assertion will be granted.
