[JURISDICTION BY ESTOPPEL= EXCEPTION]
06 SOLIVEN vs. FASTFORM PHILIPPINES
October 18, 2004 | Surname, J. |
Petitioner/s: Marie Antoinette Soliven
Respondent/s: Fastforms Philippines
Doctrine: Participation in all stages of the case before the trial court, that
included invoking its authority in asking for affirmative relief, effectively barred
petitioner by estoppel from challenging the courts jurisdiction. Petitioner is
estopped to raise the issue through his own inaction.
Facts:
 On June 2, 1993, respondent, through its president Dr. Eduardo
Escobar obtained a P170,000 loan from petitioner, payable within 21
days at an interest rate of 3%, shown by a promissory note executed
by Escobar.
 Respondent issued a P175,000 postdated check (June 25, 1993). It
was signed by Dr. Escobar and Mr. Lorcan Harney, respondent’s VP.
 3 weeks later, Dr. Escobar advised petitioner not to deposit the
postdated check since the account has insufficient funds. He
proposed that the P175,000 be rolled over with a 5% monthy interest
worth P8,755. Petitioner agreed.
 Respondent through Escobar, the VP and the new president issued
several checks totaling P76,250 as payments for interests. Despite
petitioner’s demands, respondent refused to pay the principal
obligation and interests due.
 On May 20, 1994, the petitioner filed a complaint for a sum of money
and damages with the RTC, and the RTC ruled in favor of her.
 Respondent filed an MFR and questioned the courts’ jurisdiction for
the first time, saying that the amount (P195,955) was less that P200k,
and therefore must be filed in the MTC as per RA 7691. The RTC
denied this and said that the totality of the demand exceeded 200k.
 CA reversed due to lack of jurisdiction
Ruling:
W/N the RTC has jurisdiction of the case - NO. It is the MeTC with
jurisdiction over the case.
 Sec. 1 of RA 7691 states where the amount of the demand in civil
cases instituted in Metro
Manila exceeds P200,000.00, exclusive of interest, damages of
whatever kind, attorneys fees, litigation expenses, and costs, the
exclusive original jurisdiction thereof is lodged with the Regional Trial
Court.
 Sec. 3 of the same law, where the amount of the demand in the
complaint instituted in Metro Manila
does not exceed P200,000.00, exclusive of interest, damages of
whatever kind, attorneys fees, litigation expenses, and costs, the
exclusive original jurisdiction over the same is vested in the
Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court and Municipal Circuit
Trial Court.
 In admin circular No. 9-94, it is stated that the exclusion of damages
of whatever kind applies to vases where the damages are merely
incidental or the main cause of action. However, in cases where the
claim for damages is the main cause of action, or one of the causes
of action, the amount of such claim shall be considered in
determining the jurisdiction of the court.
 In this case, the main cause of action is for the recovery of sum of
money amounting to only P195,155.00. The damages being
claimed by petitioner are merely the consequences of this main
cause of action.
W/N Respondent is estopped from raising the issue of the Court’s
jurisdiction in this case case - YES. While it is true that jurisdiction may be
raised at any time, the rule presupposes that estoppel has not supervened.
 Respondent actively participated in all stages of the proceedings in
the RTC
 Participation in all stages of the case before the trial court, that
included invoking its authority in asking for affirmative relief,
effectively barred petitioner by estoppel from challenging the courts
jurisdiction. Petitioner is estopped to raise the issue through his
own inaction. (Pantranco North Express Inc. vs. CA)
 The Court has constantly upheld the doctrine that while jurisdiction
may be assailed at any stage, a litigants participation in all stages
of the case before the trial court, including the invocation of its
authority in asking for affirmative relief, bars such party from
challenging the courts jurisdiction. (PNOC Shipping and Transport
Co vs. CA)
 A party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative
relief against his opponent and after obtaining or failing to obtain
such relief, repudiate or question that same jurisdiction. (Asset
Privatizaton Trust vs. CA)
Dispositive
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision
dated February 8, 1999 and Resolution dated June 17, 1999 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 51946 are REVERSED. The Decision dated July
3, 1995 and Resolution dated October 11, 1995 of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 60, Makati City in Civil Case No. 94-1788 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

Notes
Insert notes