La Naval Drug Corp Vs CA
La Naval Drug Corp Vs CA
La Naval Drug Corp Vs CA
C. YAO, respondents.
the arbitration issue and separate trial for his claim for damages is
procedurally untenable and implausible.
The respondent court announced that the two arbitrators chose Mrs. Eloisa
R. Narciso as the third arbitrator. And ordered the parties to submit their
position papers on the issue as to whether or not respondent Yao's claim for
damages may be litigated upon in the summary proceeding for enforcement
of arbitration agreement. In moving for reconsideration of the said Order,
petitioner argued that in Special Case No. 6024, the respondent court sits as
a special court exercising limited jurisdiction and is not competent to act on
respondent Yao's claim for damages, which poses an issue litigable in an
ordinary civil action. But the respondent court was not persuaded by
petitioner's submission. It denied the motion for reconsideration.
While the appellate court has agreed with petitioner that, under Section 6 of
Republic Act No. 876, a court, acting within the limits of its special
jurisdiction, may in this case solely determine the issue of whether the
litigants should proceed or not to arbitration, it, however, considered
petitioner in estoppel from questioning the competence of the court to
additionally hear and decide in the summary proceedings private
respondent's claim for damages, it (petitioner) having itself filed similarly its
own counterclaim with the court a quo.
In moving for reconsideration, petitioner argued that in Special Case No.
6024, the respondent court sits as a special court exercising limited
jurisdiction and is not competent to act on respondent Yao's claim for
damages, which poses an issue litigable in an ordinary civil action. But the
respondent court was not persuaded by petitioner's submission.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the court it has jurisdiction over the person
2. Whether or not the court a quo has jurisdiction over the subject matter.
RATIO:
1. The lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant may be waived
either expressly or impliedly. When a defendant voluntarily appears, he is
deemed to have submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court. If he so
wishes not to waive this defense, he must do so seasonably by motion for
the purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of the court; otherwise, he shall be
action is the situation that arises when a court, which ordinarily would have
the authority and competence to take a case, is rendered without it either
because a special law has limited the exercise of its normal jurisdiction on a
particular matter or because the type of action has been reposed by law in
certain other courts or quasi-judicial agencies for determination.
Nevertheless, it can hardly be questioned that the rules relating to the effects
of want of jurisdiction over the subject matter should apply with equal vigor to
cases where the court is similarly bereft of jurisdiction over the nature of the
action.
In summary, it is our considered view, as we now so hereby express,
that
(1) Jurisdiction over the person must be seasonably raised, i.e., that it
is pleaded in a motion to dismiss or by way of an affirmative defense in
an answer. Voluntary appearance shall be deemed a waiver of this
defense. The assertion, however, of affirmative defenses shall not be
constructed as an estoppel or as a waiver of such defense.
(2) Where the court itself clearly has no jurisdiction over the subject
matter or the nature of the action, the invocation of this defense may be
done at any time. It is neither for the courts nor the parties to violate or
disregard that rule, let alone to confer that jurisdiction, this matter
being legislative in character. Barring highly meritorious and
exceptional circumstances, such as hereinbefore exemplified, neither
estoppel nor waiver shall apply.
In the case at bench, the want of jurisdiction by the court is indisputable,
given the nature of the controversy. The arbitration law explicitly confines the
court's authority only to pass upon the issue of whether there is or there is no
agreement in writing providing for arbitration. In the affirmative, the statute
ordains that the court shall issue an order "summarily directing the parties to
proceed with the arbitration in accordance with the terms thereof." If the
court, upon the other hand, finds that no such agreement exists, "the
proceeding shall be dismissed." The proceedings are summary in nature.