Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1954 > May 1954 Decisions > G.R. No. L-7045 May 18, 1954 - BENIGNO C. GUTIERREZ v. LAUREANO JOSE RUIZ, ET AL.

094 Phil 1024:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-7045. May 18, 1954.]

BENIGNO C. GUTIERREZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LAUREANO JOSE RUIZ, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

Mario Bengzon for Appellant.

Jorge A. Pascua for Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. MUNICIPAL COURTS; ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OVER CIVIL CASES. — Under the Revised Charter of the City of Manila, the Municipal Court of Manila has the same jurisdiction as justice of the peace courts under Republic Act No. 296. Where the amount of the demand, exclusive of, and in addition to, interest and costs, aggregated P2,700, the Municipal Court of Manila had no jurisdiction to decide the case on the merits.

2. ID.; DECISION; APPEAL TO COURTS OF FIRST INSTANCE; JURISDICTION OF COURTS OF FIRST INSTANCE ON APPEAL. — Granting that the appeal from the decision of the Municipal Court of Manila has been seasonably perfected, the court of first instance, in such case, has no authority except to dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction of the municipal court, for which reason it could not have exercised appellate jurisdiction. Neither could it exercise original jurisdiction inasmuch as the legality of the decision of the Municipal Court of Manila had been impugned by the plaintiff and any decision of the municipal court, would have been, therefore, as null and void as that of the latter, for lack of jurisdiction.


D E C I S I O N


CONCEPCION, J.:


On or about September 14, 1950, Laureano Jose Ruiz instituted, in the Municipal Court of Manila, civil case No. 13038 of said court, against Benigno C. Gutierrez. In the complaint, Ruiz prayed for judgment:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"(a) Sentencing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the sum of P2,000, the full amount of the aforequoted promissory note, together with legal interest thereon from March 1, 1950, the date of extra- judicial demand, until fully paid, above-described which should be paid even if the suspensive condition for the payment of the said promissory note is not deemed fulfilled by reason of the alleged facts in paragraph 5 hereof;

"(b) sentencing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the amount of P700 as consequential damages and the costs of this suit; and

"(c) granting unto the plaintiff such general relief which this Court may deem just and equitable under the above premises." (Pp. 3 and 4, Exhibit A.)

On October 20, 1950, decision was rendered by said court, presided over by Honorable Guillermo Cabrera, Judge reading:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Upon this case being called for hearing this morning, at 10:10 o’clock, the plaintiff appeared by his attorney. The defendant did not show up, notwithstanding the fact that according to the records of the case, he was duly notified of said hearing, and, upon the application of plaintiff’s attorney, said defendant was declared in default.

"On the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff in support of the complaint, judgment is hereby rendered for the plaintiff and against the defendant by default, ordering the latter to pay the plaintiff the sum of P2,000, together with legal interest thereon from March 1, 1950 until fully paid, plus the sum of P700 by way of damages, and besides the costs of this suit." (Exhibit B.)

On appeal to the Court of First Instance of Manila — where the case was docketed as civil case No. 12719 of said court — Gutierrez assailed the validity of said decision, upon the ground that the amount involved in the litigation exceeds the jurisdiction of the municipal court, but this pretense was not sustained by the court of first instance, which "declared that the decision of the municipal court in said case No. 13038 had already become final and executory," as alleged in paragraph (4) of the amended complaint of Gutierrez in civil case No. 13614 of the Court of First Instance of Manila — to which we shall presently refer — and admitted by Ruiz in paragraph (2) of his answer in the same case. Thereafter, Ruiz petitioned for a writ of execution, which was issued by Judge Cabrera and which the Sheriff of Manila sought to enforce, by levying upon several properties of Gutierrez. Hence, on April 6, 1951, the latter commenced in the Court of First Instance of Manila said civil case No. 13614 thereof, against Ruiz, Judge Cabrera and the Sheriff of Manila. On April 10, 1951, said court issued a writ of preliminary injunction, enjoining the defendants from executing the decision of the Municipal Court in civil case No. 13038. In his amended complaint, dated April 14, 1951, Gutierrez prayed the Court of First Instance of Manila, in said case No. 13614.

"1. To render judgment declaring the judgment of the Municipal Court of the City of Manila, in said Civil Case No. 13038, null and void in that the Municipal Court of the City of Manila does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action;

"2. To render judgment for damages in the amount FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000) against the defendants Laureano Jose Ruiz Guillermo Cabrera, jointly and severally.

"3. To render judgment against the Sheriff of the City of Manila in the amount of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000) plus the amount of ONE HUNDRED PESOS (P100) every day from and after April 10, 1951, as damages suffered by the plaintiff herein for the unwarranted and uncalled for refusal of said defendant Sheriff of the City of Manila to obey the writ of preliminary injunction issued in the above entitled case; plaintiff also further prays for costs and for any other relief as this Court may deem just and equitable." (Pp. 6 and 7, Record on Appeal.)

In due course, the court of first instance, presided over by Honorable Demetrio Encarnacion, Judge, rendered a decision in said case No. 13614, the pertinent parts of which read:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"En sintesis, se trata de conseguir un remedio de este juzgado para anular lo actuado por el Juzgado Municipal, presidido entonces por el Hon. Guillermo Cabrera, bajo el fundamento de que la decision en aquella causa se dicto sin jurisdiccion ordinaria bajo la Ley Judicial No. 296 de la Republica de Filipinas. Segun la parte demandante, la jurisdiccion del Juzgado Municipal llegaba solamente a P2,000.00 en asuntos civiles, pero habiendose pedido en la misma demanda P700.00 de daños, ademas de la cantidad principal y costas, se contiende en la demanda que la accion estaba fuera de la jurisdiccion y competencia de dicho Juzgado Municipal. El Juez Cabrera desatendio esta cuestion de jurisdiccion y dicto sentencia condenando al demandado, Benigno C. Gutierrez, hoy recurrente en esta accion. Como consta en autos, una vez dictada la sentencia por el Juzgado Municipal el 20 de Octubre de 1950, tal decision fue apelada por el demandado ante este Juzgado, pero en apelacion este Juzgado superior desestimo la cuestion planteada sobre la falta de jurisdiccion del Juzgado Municipal en la causa civil No. 12719, sosteniendo la legalidad de la decision del Juzgado Municipal antedicha y hasta su jurisdiccion. Y esta decision del Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Manila quedo firme.

"Con vista de estos datos, el Juzgado entiende y asi opina, que la presente accion carece de base habiendo quedado firme la decision del Juzgado de Primera Instancia en la causa civil No. 12719, arriba mencionada, dicho se esta que esta accion es insostenible. Seria multiplicar litigios y repetir los mismos a pesar de haber pasado al estado de cosa juzgada, como es asi el presente litigio. Ademas, sin necesidad de tocar la cuestion vital, este Juzgado es de opinion que la adicion de P700.00 de daños a la suma principal reclamada en la demanda, no afectaba ni podria afectar la jurisdiccion y competencia del Juzgado Municipal, porque los daños son accesorios y contingentes y no determinan la jurisdiccion de un juzgado.

"Por todo lo expuesto, el Juzgado ordena el sobresimiento de la presente causa, con costas al demandante." (Record on Appeal, pp. 25-26.)

Said case No. 13614 is now before us as case G. R. No. L-7045, on appeal taken by Gutierrez from said decision of Judge Encarnacion.

The first question for determination by this Court is whether or not the municipal court had jurisdiction over the subject matter of case No. 13038. The pertinent portions of sections 44 and 88 of Republic Act No. 296, otherwise known as the Judiciary Act of 1948, are quoted hereunder:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 44. Original jurisdiction. — Courts of First Instance shall have original jurisdiction:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


"(c) In all cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, or the value of the property in controversy, amounts to more than two thousand pesos;"

x       x       x


"SEC. 88 . . . In all civil actions, including those mentioned in Rules 59 and 62 of the Rules of Court, arising in his municipality or city, and not exclusively cognizable by the Court of First Instance, the justice of the peace and the judge of a municipal court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction where the value of the subject-matter or amount of the demand does not exceed two thousand pesos, exclusive of interest and costs. . . .

Referring, particularly, to the Municipal Court of Manila, section 39 of Republic Act No. 409, which is the Revised Charter of the City of Manila, declares, that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The municipal court shall have the same jurisdiction in civil and criminal cases and the same incidental powers as at present conferred by law upon the justice of the peace courts except those in conflict with the provisions of this Charter and such additional jurisdiction and powers as may be conferred upon it by this Charter or by special law. . . . (2nd par., Sec. 39.)

Pursuant to these provisions, the Municipal Court of Manila has the same jurisdiction as justice of the peace courts under Republic Act No. 296. The latter’s original jurisdiction, as regards civil cases capable of pecuniary estimation, is limited to those in which "the value of the subject-matter or amount of the demand does not exceed two thousand pesos, exclusive of interest and costs." In the complaint filed in civil case No. 13038 of the municipal court, Ruiz sought to collect the sum of P2,000, with interest thereon from March 1, 1950, plus P700 as consequential damages, and costs. In other words, "the amount of the demand," exclusive of, and in addition to, interest and costs, aggregated P2,700. It is clear, therefore, that the municipal court had no jurisdiction to decide said case on the merits, and that its decision granting said demand is null and void.

The next question for determination is whether the action taken by the court of first instance in case No. 127129, on appeal from said decision of the municipal court, is a bar to the present case. Defendant-appellee, Ruiz, and the decision appealed from, maintain an affirmative answer, upon the ground that the legality of the decision of the municipal court in case No. 13038, had been upheld already in the "decision" of the Court of First Instance of Manila in case No. 12719; that the latter "decision" has become final and executory; that, consequently, the issue on the legality of the decision of the municipal court has thus been definitely settled; and that it may no longer be determined in the present case under the principle of res adjudicata. This view is untenable for:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) In Case No. 12719 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, the same held that the decision of the municipal court had already become final and executory. Accordingly, the former court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. It had no authority, therefore, to pass upon the legality of the decision of the municipal court and any finding made thereon by said court of first instance was null and void. Indeed, it has not been proven that said court had rendered a decision in case No. 12719. And, considering that it found the decision of the municipal court to be final and executory, the court of first instance must have issued merely an order of dismissal of the appeal. This is borne out by the fact that the court of first instance did not pass upon the merits of the claim of Ruiz for P2,700, plus interest and costs. Hence, the writ of execution issued by the municipal court sought to enforce its own decision, not that of the court of first instance. Had the appeal from the decision of the municipal court been reasonably perfected. However, said decision of the municipal court would have been vacated and the court of first instance would have had to render a new decision, and even if the latter were, in effect, confirmatory of the former, the one to be executed would have been the decision of the court of first instance, not that of the municipal court, which would exist no longer.

(2) If the appeal from the decision of the municipal court had been perfected in due time, the court of first instance would have had no authority over the case except to dismiss the same, for want of jurisdiction of the municipal court, for which reason the court of first instance could not have exercised appellate jurisdiction over the case. This court could not have even exercised its original jurisdiction, inasmuch as Gutierrez had impliedly objected thereto by questioning the legality of the decision of the municipal court. In other words, the decision of the court of first instance, had it rendered one in case No. 12719, sustaining the legality of the decision of the municipal court, would have been as null and void as the latter, for lack of jurisdiction therefor.

Referring now to the claim of plaintiff-appellant, Gutierrez, for damages, the evidence on record does not suffice to warrant a judgment thereon in his favor.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed and another one shall be entered declaring that the aforementioned decision of the Municipal Court of Manila in Civil Case No. 131038 thereof is null and void, without special pronouncement as to costs.

Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista Angelo and Labrador, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





May-1954 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-6669 May 3, 1954 - PEDRO DAQUIS v. MAXIMO BUSTOS

    094 Phil 913

  • G.R. No. L-6736 May 4, 1954 - ISABEL GABRIEL, ET AL. v. DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION, ET AL.

    094 Phil 917

  • G.R. No. L-6220 May 7, 1954 - MARTINA QUIZANA v. GAUDENCIO REDUGERIO, ET AL.

    094 Phil 922

  • G.R. No. L-5773 May 10, 1954 - CASIMIRO, ET AL. v. FABIAN SOBERANO

    094 Phil 927

  • G.R. No. L-6538 May 10, 1954 - PABLO BURGUETE v. JOVENCIO Q. MAYOR, ET AL.

    094 Phil 930

  • G.R. No. L-5694 May 12, 1954 - PAMBUJAN SUR UNITED MINE WORKERS v. SAMAR MINING CO., INC.

    094 Phil 932

  • G.R. No. L-6666 May 12, 1954 - GORGONIO PANDES v. JOSE TEODORO SR., ET AL.

    094 Phil 942

  • G.R. No. L-6765 May 12, 1954 - FULGENCIO VEGA, ET AL. v. MUN. BOARD OF THE CITY OF ILOILO, ET AL.

    094 Phil 949

  • G.R. No. L-4918 May 14, 1954 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE LEON GONZALEZ, ET AL.

    094 Phil 956

  • G.R. No. L-5689 May 14, 1954 - JUAN DE G. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. v. AURELIO MONTINOLA, ET AL.

    094 Phil 964

  • G.R. No. L-5900 May 14, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAULINO FRANCISCO

    094 Phil 975

  • G.R. No. L-5942 May 14, 1954 - R.F.C. v. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    094 Phil 984

  • G.R. No. L-6313 May 14, 1954 - ROYAL SHIRT FACTORY, INC. v. CO

    094 Phil 994

  • G.R. No. L-6444 May 14, 1954 - MUN. OF CALOOCAN v. MANOTOK REALTY, INC. ET AL.

    094 Phil 1003

  • G.R. No. L-6572 May 14, 1954 - MAX CHAMORRO & CO. v. PHIL. READY-MIX CONCRETE CO., INC., ET AL.

    094 Phil 1005

  • G.R. No. L-6792 May 14, 1954 - FAUSTO D. LAQUIAN v. FILOMENA SOCCO, ET AL.

    094 Phil 1010

  • G.R. No. L-6921 May 14, 1954 - EUGENIO CATILO v. GAVINO S. ABAYA

    094 Phil 1014

  • G.R. No. L-6481 May 17, 1954 - JESUS GUIAO v. ALBINO L. FIGUEROA

    094 Phil 1018

  • G.R. No. L-7045 May 18, 1954 - BENIGNO C. GUTIERREZ v. LAUREANO JOSE RUIZ, ET AL.

    094 Phil 1024

  • G.R. No. L-5378 May 24, 1954 - CO TIONG SA v. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS

    095 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-6408 May 24, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EPIFANIO CARULASDULASAN, ET AL.

    095 Phil 8

  • G.R. No. L-6522 May 24, 1954 - LUIS B. UVERO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    095 Phil 11

  • G.R. No. L-6807 May 24, 1954 - JESUS SACRED HEART COLLEGE v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    095 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. L-6870 May 24, 1954 - ELENA AMEDO v. RIO Y OLABARRIETA, INC.

    095 Phil 33

  • G.R. No. L-6988 May 24, 1954 - U.S.T. HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. STO. TOMAS UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL

    095 Phil 40

  • G.R. No. L-4817 May 26, 1954 - SILVESTRE M. PUNSALAN v. MUNICIPAL BOARD OF THE CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

    095 Phil 46

  • G.R. No. L-5682 May 26, 1954 - ANASTACIO N. ABAD v. CANDIDA CARGANILLO VDA. DE YANCE

    095 Phil 51

  • G.R. No. L-5807 May 26, 1954 - BASILIA CABRERA, ET AL. v. FLORENCIA BELEN, ET AL.

    095 Phil 54

  • G.R. No. L-5906 May 26, 1954 - ANGAT-MANILA TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. VICTORIA VDA. DE TENGCO

    095 Phil 58

  • G.R. No. L-5953 May 26, 1954 - EX-MERALCO EMPLOYEES TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    095 Phil 61

  • G.R. No. L-6246 May 26, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX RIPAS

    095 Phil 63

  • G.R. No. L-6260 May 26, 1954 - HERMOGENES TARUC v. BACHRACH MOTOR CO.

    095 Phil 73

  • G.R. No. L-6306 May 26, 1954 - FORTUNATO HALILI v. MARIA LLORET, ET AL.

    095 Phil 78

  • G.R. No. L-6353 May 26, 1954 - DANIEL CABANGANGAN v. ROBERTO CONCEPCION, ET AL.

    095 Phil 87

  • G.R. No. L-6463 May 26, 1954 - RIZAL SURETY & INSURANCE CO. v. MARCIANO DE LA PAZ

    095 Phil 90

  • G.R. Nos. L-6675-81 May 26, 1954 - BIENVENIDO E. DOLLENTE v. EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS

    095 Phil 97

  • G.R. No. L-7024 May 26, 1954 - ROMAN TOLSA v. ALEJANDRO J. PANLILIO, ET AL.

    095 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. L-4935 May 28, 1954 - J.M. TUASON & CO., INC. v. QUIRINO BOLAÑOS

    095 Phil 106

  • G.R. No. L-6462 May 28, 1954 - BELEN JOVE LAGRIMAS v. TITO LAGRIMAS

    095 Phil 113

  • G.R. No. L-6967 May 28, 1954 - JOSE PONCE DE LEON v. FIDEL IBAÑEZ, ET AL.

    095 Phil 119

  • G.R. No. L-7042 May 28, 1954 - CLOTILDE MEJIA VDA. DE ALFAFARA v. PLACIDO MAPA, ET AL.

    095 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. L-3663 May 31, 1954 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. MARIA VELASCO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

    095 Phil 135

  • G.R. No. L-4510 May 31, 1954 - MARC DONNELLY & ASSOCIATES, INC. v. MANUEL AGREGADO, ET AL.

    095 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. L-4633 May 31, 1954 - GREGORIO ARANETA, INC. v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

    095 Phil 160

  • G.R. No. L-5824 May 31, 1954 - PAZ PAREJA v. JULIO PAREJA

    095 Phil 167

  • G.R. No. L-5837 May 31, 1954 - CRISTOBAL BONNEVIE, ET AL. v. JAIME HERNANDEZ

    095 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. L-6018 May 31, 1954 - EMILIANO MORABE v. WILLIAM BROWN

    095 Phil 181

  • G.R. No. L-6122 May 31, 1954 - AURELIA DE LARA, ET AL. v. JACINTO AYROSO

    095 Phil 185

  • G.R. No. L-6461 May 31, 1954 - PILAR ARAULLO MACOY v. CARMEN VASQUEZ TRINIDAD, ET AL.

    095 Phil 192

  • G.R. Nos. L-7403 & L-7426 May 31, 1954 - COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS v. GAVINO S. ABAYA, ET AL.

    095 Phil 205