In cases involving violations of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P. 22), commonly known as the Bouncing Checks Law, the Supreme Court has reiterated the importance of promptly raising jurisdictional challenges. The Court emphasized that while the payment of docket fees is generally essential for a court to acquire jurisdiction over a case, a party’s prolonged silence and active participation in court proceedings can bar them from later questioning that jurisdiction based on the principle of laches. This means that if a party waits too long to question a court’s authority, they may lose their right to do so.

Dishonored Checks and Delayed Doubts: When Can a Party Question Jurisdiction?

This case revolves around Rosario M. Apacible, who had a dealership agreement with San Miguel Corporation (SMC). After Apacible became delinquent in her payments, SMC terminated the agreement. Apacible issued several post-dated checks to cover her outstanding debt, but four of these checks were dishonored due to insufficient funds. SMC filed criminal charges against Apacible for violation of B.P. 22. The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) acquitted Apacible on the criminal charges due to insufficient evidence. However, the MTCC ordered her to pay SMC the face value of the dishonored checks, plus interest, as civil liability. Apacible appealed, arguing that the MTCC lacked jurisdiction because SMC had not paid the required docket fees for the civil aspect of the case.

The legal framework governing B.P. 22 cases is unique. Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, a criminal action for violation of B.P. 22 is deemed to include the corresponding civil action. This means that the offended party, in this case SMC, must pay the full filing fees based on the amount of the check involved, as specified in Section 1(b), Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure:

SECTION 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. –

(b) The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed.

This requirement ensures that the courts have jurisdiction over both the criminal and civil aspects of the case simultaneously. The Supreme Court has consistently held that payment of docket fees is essential for a court to acquire jurisdiction over a case. In Hyatt Industrial Manufacturing Corp., v. Asia Dynamic Electrix Corp. et al., the Court highlighted that because of this rule, payment of docket fees is required upon the filing of the complaint. Failure to pay the fees can render the court without jurisdiction over the civil aspect, potentially invalidating any judgment on the matter.

It also requires the complainant to pay in full the filing fees based on the amount of the check involved. Generally, no filing fees are required for criminal cases, but because of the inclusion of the civil action in complaints for violation of B.P. 22, the Rules require the payment of docket fees upon the filing of the complaint.

Despite the general rule, the Supreme Court recognized that strict adherence to the rules on payment of docket fees is not always absolute. The court has allowed for a more liberal interpretation depending on the specific circumstances of each case. The crucial issue in Apacible’s case was whether she could raise the issue of non-payment of docket fees so late in the proceedings. The Court considered that Apacible had actively participated in the lower court proceedings for over eleven years, and she only raised the issue of non-payment of docket fees in her Supplemental Appeal Memorandum before the RTC. This delay became the focal point of the Court’s decision. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled against Apacible, invoking the equitable principle of laches.

Laches is defined as the 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. In essence, 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. The Supreme Court noted that while the issue of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, a party may be barred from raising it on the ground of laches or estoppel. The Court emphasized that Apacible had actively participated in the MTCC proceedings, including cross-examining witnesses and filing numerous motions. This active engagement suggested an acceptance of the court’s jurisdiction, and it would be unfair to allow her to challenge it after such a prolonged period. The Court cited Ramones v. Spouses Guimoc, where the respondents therein questioned the petitioner’s alleged underpayment of docket fees for the first time on appeal before the RTC, or five years after the institution of the case.

This situation is what the Supreme Court in Amoguis, et a!. v. Ballado, et al., calls the concept of estoppel by laches. Estoppel by laches bars a party from invoking lack of jurisdiction in an unjustly belated manner especially when it actively participated during trial. It prevents a party from presenting his or her claim when, by reason of abandonment and negligence, he or she allowed a long time to elapse without presenting it.

In estoppel by laches, a claimant has a right that he or she could otherwise exercise if not for his or her delay in asserting it. This delay in the exercise of the right unjustly misleads the court and the opposing party of its waiver. Thus, to claim it belatedly given the specific circumstances of the case would be unjust.

The Court emphasized that Apacible had all the opportunity to raise the issue of the court’s alleged lack of jurisdiction for nonpayment of docket fees. She even stretched the lower court’s benevolence, not only by asking at least 12 motions for postponement, but also by repeatedly relitigating issues which the MTCC had already passed upon. Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the CA’s decision, ordering Apacible to pay SMC the amount of the dishonored checks, plus interest. The Court’s decision underscored the importance of raising jurisdictional issues promptly and not engaging in dilatory tactics that could prejudice the opposing party.

This case serves as a crucial reminder to litigants to diligently address any concerns about a court’s jurisdiction at the earliest possible opportunity. Failure to do so may result in the loss of the right to challenge the court’s authority, even if the non-payment of docket fees initially deprived the court of jurisdiction. The Court’s ruling reinforces the principle that fairness and diligence are essential components of the legal process, and parties cannot exploit procedural technicalities to escape their obligations.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Apacible could question the MTCC’s jurisdiction over the civil aspect of the case after actively participating in the proceedings for over eleven years and only raising the issue of non-payment of docket fees on appeal.
What is Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P. 22)?	B.P. 22, also known as the Bouncing Checks Law, is a Philippine law that penalizes the issuance of checks without sufficient funds or with a closed account.
What are docket fees?	Docket fees are the fees required to be paid to the court for filing a case or other legal proceedings. Payment of docket fees is generally essential for a court to acquire jurisdiction over a case.
What is the principle of laches?	Laches is an equitable principle that prevents a party from asserting a right after an unreasonable delay that has prejudiced the opposing party. It is based on the notion that fairness and equity require parties to be diligent in pursuing their rights.
Why did the MTCC acquit Apacible of the criminal charges?	The MTCC acquitted Apacible because the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Specifically, the prosecution did not adequately prove that Apacible received the notice of dishonor for the checks.
How did the Court of Appeals (CA) rule on the issue of docket fees?	The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision, noting that Apacible failed to raise the issue of docket fees during the proceedings before the MTCC. The CA also held that the RTC did not err in creating a lien for the docket fees against the civil liability incurred by Apacible.
What is a lien on the judgment?	A lien on the judgment means that the docket fees would be paid out of the monetary award that Apacible was ordered to pay SMC. This ensures that the government receives the required fees without delaying the resolution of the case.
What does it mean for a civil action to be deemed instituted with a criminal action in B.P. 22 cases?	It means that when a criminal case for violation of B.P. 22 is filed, the corresponding civil action to recover the amount of the dishonored check is automatically included. This eliminates the need to file a separate civil case.
What was the significance of Apacible’s active participation in the MTCC proceedings?	Apacible’s active participation, including cross-examination of witnesses and filing numerous motions, demonstrated her acceptance of the MTCC’s jurisdiction. This made it inequitable for her to later challenge the court’s authority based on non-payment of docket fees.
What is the main takeaway from this case for litigants?	The main takeaway is that litigants must promptly raise any concerns about a court’s jurisdiction and cannot delay raising such issues to gain a tactical advantage. Failure to do so may result in the loss of the right to challenge the court’s authority.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case highlights the importance of raising jurisdictional issues promptly and not engaging in dilatory tactics that could prejudice the opposing party. The principle of laches serves as a bar to belatedly questioning a court’s authority when a party has actively participated in the proceedings for an extended period. The ruling underscores the need for diligence and fairness in legal proceedings and reinforces the principle that parties cannot exploit procedural technicalities to escape their obligations.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: ROSARIO M. APACIBLE, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, G.R. No. 233181, August 22, 2022