[ GR No.

48754, Nov 26, 1941 ]

EMILIO V. REYES v. APOLONIO R. DIAZ +

FACTS:

The petitioner is a regular member of the Integrated National Police of Tacloban City with the
rank of Patrolman.

On April 16, 1982 at about 6:00 o'clock in the evening, while directing traffic at the intersection
of Burgos-Tarcela-Lucente Streets, Tacloban City, the petitioner tried to apprehend Romeo
Lozano, a motorized tricycle driver, for violations of traffic rules and regulations. An altercation
occurred between them which resulted in the shooting and death of Romeo Lozano.

On October 30,1982, Mrs. Anacorita Lozano, widow of Romeo Lozano, filed an administrative
complaint against the petitioner with the National Police Commission NAPOLCOM, Region
VIII, Tacloban City for grave misconduct. After hearings on the merits, the Adjudication Board
No. 8, NAPOLCOM, Manila rendered a decision dated August 9,1984 finding the petitioner
guilty of grave misconduct and meted the penalty of "Dismissal from the Service." On a motion
for reconsideration, the Adjudication Board modified its decision by finding the petitioner guilty
only of Less Grave Misconduct and modified the penalty from dismissal to suspension from
service for six months without pay.

During the pendency of the administrative case, Mrs. Lozano also filed a complaint for homicide
with the City Fiscal's Office of Tacloban.
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.