This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2008-12-08 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Petitioner cannot presume that it would have been estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the CIAC had it participated in the proceedings. In fact, estoppel is a matter for the court to consider. The doctrine of laches or of stale demands is based upon grounds of public policy which requires, for the peace of society, the discouragement of stale claims and, unlike the statute of limitations, is not a mere question of time but is principally a question of the inequity or unfairness of permitting a right or claim to be enforced or asserted.[62] The Court always looks into the attendant circumstances of the case so as not to subvert public policy.[63] Given that petitioner questioned the jurisdiction of the CIAC from the beginning, it was not remiss in enforcing its right. Hence, petitioner's claim that it would have been estopped is premature. | |||||