Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1956 > September 1956 Decisions > [G.R. No. L-9516. September 29, 1956.] GREGORIO CARLOS, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. P. J. KIENER CONSTRUCTION, LTD., Defendant-Appellee.:




EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-9516.  September 29, 1956.]

GREGORIO CARLOS, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. P. J. KIENER CONSTRUCTION, LTD., Defendant-Appellee.

 

D E C I S I O N

PADILLA, J.:

As assignee of a right of action arising from due and unpaid wages and those for overtime, as provided for in Commonwealth Act No. 444, earned by Julio Carlos who had worked as latheman for the Defendant, a limited partnership, from 16 November 1949 to 21 March 1952 when he died, leaving as only heirs his parents named Lázaro Carlos and Candida Reyes who, for valuable consideration, assigned their right, the Plaintiff brought this action in the Court of First Instance of Manila against the Defendant to recover such due and unpaid wages and those for overtime amounting to P1,952.55, lawful interest thereon from the filing of the complaint, the Defendant having refused to pay it despite demand, and 10% thereof as attorney’s fees, whose services the Plaintiff had been compelled to engage, and costs.

After filing an answer with a counterclaim, the Defendant moved for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that as the amount of money sought to be recovered was P1,952.55 only, the Court had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the case. On 22 June 1955 the Court dismissed the complaint relying upon the case of Rosario vs. Carandang, 51 Off. Gaz. 2387, where it was stated that “costs and attorney’s fees are excluded from the jurisdictional amount that confers jurisdiction upon courts  cralaw.” On 9 July 1955 the motion for reconsideration filed by the Plaintiff was denied. He appealed.

The action brought in the case just mentioned was one of forcible entry. The jurisdiction of the courts in such cases is determined by the nature of the action and not by the amount of money sought to be recovered which may exceed P2,000. 1 So, any statement or proposition that may have been made in the case referred to which was not necessary for the determination of the controversy involved in the action is obiter dictum. Section 88, Republic Act No. 296, 2 provides that in the determination of the jurisdictional amount only interest and costs shall be excluded from the amount of money sought to be recovered in an action where the remedy prayed for is recovery of a sum of money. Thus, in Teresa Vda. de Rosario vs. Justice of the Peace of Camiling, Tarlac, et al., (99 Phil., 693) this Court held that —

While some doubt had arisen in the past as to whether the jurisdiction of a court depends, in cases where several claims or causes of action between the same parties are embodied in a single complaint, on the amount of each single claim or upon the totality of the demand in all the causes of action, we have finally held in the cases of Soriano vs. Omila, 51 Off. Gaz., (No. 7) p. 3465, and Campos Rueda Corporation vs. Sta. Cruz Timber Co. Inc. (52 Off. Gaz., (No. 3) p. 1387), that the jurisdiction of the court depends upon the totality of the demand in all the causes of action, irrespective of whether the plural causes constituting the total claim arose out of the same or different transactions. The only exceptions to this rule are (1) where the claims joined under the same complaints are separately owed by, or due to, different parties, in which case each separate claim furnishes the jurisdictional test (Argonza, et al. vs. International Colleges, G. R. No. L-3884, November 29, 1951; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarySoriano y Cia. vs. Jose, 47 Off. Gaz. (12 Supp.), p. 156); chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand (2) where not all the causes of action joined are demands or claims for money.

Section 3, Commonwealth Act No. 444, grants additional or overtime compensation to laborers working beyond the eight-hour period provided for by law. And article 2208 of the new Civil Code provides that attorney’s fees may be recovered in actions for the recovery of wages of laborers and skilled workers. Adding 10% to the amount claimed by the Plaintiff for wages and overtime the total sum sought to be recovered is within the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance.

The orders appealed from dismissing the complaint and denying the motion for reconsideration are set aside and the case remanded to the court below for further proceedings in accordance with law.

Paras, C.J., Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.

 

Endnotes:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

  1.  Tuason vs. Crossfield and Sellner, 30 Phil. 543, 545; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryLao Seng Hian et al. vs. Almeda-Lopez, 46 Off. Gaz., Supp. No. 11, 70.

  2.  As amended by Republic Act No. 644.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






September-1956 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. L-9414. September 7, 1956.] CIRIACO SAN ANTONIO, Petitioner, vs. ASUNCION ESPINOLA, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-9695. September 10, 1956.] In the matter of the estate of PETRONILA BAGA, Appellee, vs. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-9182. September 12, 1956.] OPERATORS, INCORPORATED, Appellant, vs. JOSE PELAGIO and VICENTE LAGMAN, Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-9895. September 12, 1956.] VALENTIN GABALDON, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-9565. September 14, 1956.] YU KI LAM, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. NENA MICALLER, ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-9785. September 19, 1956.] MARIANO H. DE JOYA, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, PASAY CITY BRANCH, presided over by the Hon. Judge EMILIO RILLORAZA, Respondent.

  • [G.R. Nos. L-8497 & L-8517. September 21, 1956.] BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION COMPANY and LAGUNA-TAYABAS BUS COMPANY, Petitioners, vs. BI�AN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, and JOSE SILVA, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-9141. September 25, 1956.] Testate Estate of OLIMPIO FERNANDEZ, deceased. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, claimant-Appellee, vs. ANGELINA OASAN VDA DE FERNANDEZ, PRISCILLA O. FERNANDEZ, and ESTELA O. FERNANDEZ, Oppositors-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-9145. September 25, 1956.] MAXIMA FELIPE, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. PONCIANA DE LA CRUZ, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-9305. September 25, 1956.] GEORGE EDWARD KOSTER INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOSE C. ZULUETA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-9334. September 25, 1956.] HEIRS OF MARIANO ARROYO SINGBENGCO, Petitioners, vs. THE HON. FRANCISCO ARELLANO, ETC., ET AL., Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-7210. September 26, 1956.] OLIMPIA OBISPO and FELICIANO CARPIO, Petitioners, vs. REMEDIOS OBISPO, CONRADO ALINEA and THE COURT OF APPEALS (Second Division), Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8818. September 27, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. VENANCIO C. MANGAMPO, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-9167. September 27, 1956.] WE WA YU, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CITY OF LIPA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8373. September 28, 1956.] ALEJANDRO MERCADER, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. MANILA POLO CLUB and ALEX D. STEWART, Defendant-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-8557. September 28, 1956.] THE CITY OF MANILA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. FRANCISCO REYES, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8771. September 28, 1956.] JOSE C. GONZALES, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. AURELIA DATU, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-8919. September 28, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellees, vs. AGUSTIN MANGULABNAN alias GUINITA, DIONISIO SARMIENTO, ARCADIO BALMEO, PATRICIO GONZALES, FLORENTINO FLORES, CRISPIN ESTRELLA, FELIPE CALISON, PEDRO VILLAREAL, CLAUDIO REYES, �PETER DOE� and �JOHN DOE� Defendant, AGUSTIN MANGULABNAN, Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8949. September 28, 1956.] ADRIANO PAJARILLO, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. ANDRES MANAHAN, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-9203. September 28, 1956.] In the matter of the petition to change and correct entry in the Civil Registry of Manila. ALBERTO T. CHOMI, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF MANILA, Respondent-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-9281. September 28, 1956.] PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS (PAFLU) and MAJESTIC AND REPUBLIC THEATERS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (PAFLU), Petitioners, vs. Hon. EDILBERTO BAROT, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila and REMA, INCORPORATED, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-9398. September 28, 1956.] AURORA REYES, assisted by her guardian ad litem, GABRIEL REYES, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. BETTY SANTOS DE LA ROSA and JAIME DE LA ROSA, Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-9819. September 28, 1956.] FIDEL DEL ROSARIO, Petitioner, vs. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION and JUAN SANTOS, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-9966. September 28, 1956.] CHIONG TIAO BING and CHIONG TIAO SIONG who is a minor and herein represented by his Father CHIONG PHAI HUN, Petitioners-Appellees, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, Respondent-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-6296. September 29, 1956.] CU UNJIENG SONS, INC., Petitioner, vs. THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS and THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-9204. September 29, 1956.] AUGUSTO R. ILLAROSA and AUGUSTO ILLAROSA, JR., Petitioners, vs. ON. JOSE TEODORO, SR., Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros, Branch II, and AMADO S. PARRE�O, Judicial Administrator of the Estate of the late spouses WENCESLAO B. PARRE�O and VIRGINIA VILLANUEVA, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-9516. September 29, 1956.] GREGORIO CARLOS, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. P. J. KIENER CONSTRUCTION, LTD., Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-9534. September 29, 1956.] MANILA STEAMSHIP CO., INC., Petitioner, vs. INSA ABDULHAMAN (MORO) and LIM HONG TO, Respondents.