A Los Angeles car accident lawyer will know just what evidence is required from their legal training and experience of past cases. If you were in this kind of accident, your family and friends might be encouraging you to hire a car accident lawyer. Is It Worth Getting a Car Accident Lawyer in Los Angeles? Oftentimes (almost always, actually), getting a lawyer involved at that point will send a signal to the insurance company that they’re not going to get away with a lowball offer. A Burg and Brock Los Angeles car accident lawyer works on a NO RECOVERY, NO FEE basis, which means our clients don’t pay us anything until we have secured a verdict or settlement on their behalf. Most reputable attorneys will give their services to you on a contingent fee basis. If you demand a specified amount of money, the defendant can use your demand as a basis to remove the case to federal court. In the instant case, respondent actively participated in all stages of the proceedings before the trial court and invoked its authority by asking for an affirmative relief. Content has be en creat ed by G SA Cont ent Ge nerator DE MO.
They invoked the trial courts jurisdiction in order to obtain affirmative relief the reconstitution of their titles. As early as 1901, this Court has declared that unless jurisdiction has been conferred by some legislative act, no court or tribunal can act on a matter submitted to it. If it had no jurisdiction, but the case was tried and decided upon the theory that it had jurisdiction, the parties are not barred, on appeal, from assailing such jurisdiction, for the same must existas a matter of law, and may not be conferred by consent of the parties or by estoppel (5 C.J.S., 861-863). However, if the lower court had jurisdiction, and the case was heard and decided upon a given theory, such, for instance, as that the court hadno jurisdiction, the party who induced it to adopt such theory will not be permitted, on appeal, to assume an inconsistent positionthat the lower court had jurisdiction. The petitioner, for his part, counters that the lack of jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter may be raised at any time even for the first time on appeal. In the case at bar, it was found by the trial court in its 30 September 1996 decision in LCR Case No. Q-60161(93) that private respondents (who filed the petition for reconstitution of titles) failed to comply with both sections 12 and 13 of RA 26 and therefore, it had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case.
This post w as generated by GSA Conte nt Generator DEMO!
It was ruled that the lack of jurisdiction having been raised for the first time in a motion to dismiss filed almost fifteen (15) years after the questioned ruling had been rendered, such a plea may no longer be raised for being barred by laches. It was only on December 29, 1989 when it filed its motion for reconsideration of the lower courts decision that petitioner raised the question of the lower courts lack of jurisdiction. In Sibonghanoy, the defense of lack of jurisdiction of the court that rendered the questioned ruling was held to be barred by estoppel by laches. For quite a time since we made this pronouncement in Sibonghanoy, courts and tribunals, in resolving issues that involve the belated invocation of lack of jurisdiction, have applied the principle of estoppel by laches. In Calimlim, despite the fact that the one who benefited from the plea of lack of jurisdiction was the one who invoked the courts jurisdiction, and who later obtained an adverse judgment therein, we refused to apply the ruling in Sibonghanoy.The Court accorded supremacy to the time-honored principle that the issue of jurisdiction is not lost by waiver or by estoppel. Petitioner thus foreclosed its right to raise the issue of jurisdiction by its own inaction.
Private respondents have thus foreclosed their right to raise the issue of jurisdiction by their own actions. The rule that jurisdiction is conferred by law, and does not depend upon the will of the parties, has no bearing thereon. While it is true that jurisdiction may be raised at any time, this rule presupposes that estoppel has not supervened. Moreover, we note that petitioner did not question at all the jurisdiction of the lower court x x x in its answers to both the amended complaint and the second amended complaint. The Court of Industrial Relations et al., G.R. Court of Appeals (G.R. Upon this same principle is what We said in the three cases mentioned in the resolution of the Court of Appeals of May 20, 1963 (supra)to the effect that we frown upon the undesirable practice of a party submitting his case for decision and then accepting the judgment, only if favorable, and attacking it for lack of jurisdiction, when adverseas well as in Pindagan etc. vs.