ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 
 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
March-1958 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-10947 March 18, 1958 - JOSE MAYOR v. MACARIO MILLAN

    103 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. L-13001 March 18, 1958 - ALFREDO ABCEDE v. DOMINGO IMPERIAL

    103 Phil 136

  • G.R. No. L-10694 March 20, 1958 - MULLER & PHIPPS (MANILA) v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    103 Phil 145

  • G.R. No. L-10911 March 21, 1958 - MANILA BLUE PRINTING CO. v. TEACHERS COLLEGE

    103 Phil 151

  • G.R. No. L-10579 March 22, 1958 - ELIZABETH CONSTANTINO v. COURT OF APPEALS

    103 Phil 153

  • G.R. No. L-10625 March 22, 1958 - RIZAL MANILA TRANSIT v. CRESENTE VICTORINO

    103 Phil 158

  • G.R. No. L-9433 March 24, 1958 - MATERIAL DISTRIBUTORS (PHIL.) v. MILES TIMBER AND TRANSPORT CORPORATION

    103 Phil 162

  • G.R. No. L-10841 March 24, 1958 - STONEHILL STEEL CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

    103 Phil 170

  • G.R. No. L-10894 March 24, 1958 - PACIFIC TOBACCO CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    103 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. L-10137 March 25, 1958 - ELOISA C. AGUILAR v. SERAFIN R. GAMBOA

    103 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. L-10578 March 25, 1958 - FELIPE ATAYDE v. PASTOR DE GUZMAN

    103 Phil 187

  • G.R. No. L-11721 March 26, 1958 - INOCENCIA ESPINOSA v. BERNABE DE AQUINO

    103 Phil 195

  • G.R. No. L-5707 March 27, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO VERSOLA

    103 Phil 201

  • G.R. No. L-10929 March 27, 1958 - RAMONA ESCOTO DE MIRANDA v. PASTOR P. REYES

    103 Phil 207

  • G.R. No. L-8831 March 28, 1958 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. FELICISIMO ARROZAL

    103 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. L-9069 March 28, 1958 - VICENTE UY CHAO v. MANUEL AGUILAR, ET AL.

    103 Phil 219

  • G.R. No. L-9979 March 28, 1958 - IN RE: MARIA EBREO, ET AL. v. ASUNCION EBREO DE BORROMEO

    103 Phil 223

  • G.R. No. L-11232 March 28, 1958 - INTERNATIONAL v. NICASIO YATCO

    103 Phil 226

  • G.R. Nos. L-9556 & L-12630 March 29, 1958 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. BIENVENIDO GARCELLANO, ET AL.

    103 Phil 231

  • G.R. No. L-10651 March 29, 1958 - LUIS BUENAVENTURA v. DAMASO STO. DOMINGO, ET AL.

    103 Phil 239

  • G.R. No. L-10676 March 29, 1958 - FELICIANO ABAD vs.GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES

    103 Phil 247

  • G.R. No. L-11086 March 29, 1958 - PILAR ATILANO v. CHUA CHING BENG

    103 Phil 255

  • G.R. No. L-11229 March 29, 1958 - MANUEL DIAZ v. CARMEN GORRICHO, ET AL.

    103 Phil 261

  • G.R. No. L-11295 March 29, 1958 - SILVERIO BLAQUERA v. JOSE S. RODRIGUEZ

    103 Phil 267

  • G.R. No. L-11324 March 29, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. YU BAO

    103 Phil 271

  • G.R. Nos. L-10364 & L-10376 March 31, 1958 - RUFINO T. SAMSON v. COURT OF APPEALS

    103 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. L-10969 March 31, 1958 - DALMACIO DE LOS ANGELES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 295

  • G.R. Nos. L-11487-88 March 31, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO HUFANA

    103 Phil 304

  •  




     
     

    G.R. No. L-10911   March 21, 1958 - MANILA BLUE PRINTING CO. v. TEACHERS COLLEGE<br /><br />103 Phil 151

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-10911. March 21, 1958.]

    MANILA BLUE PRINTING Co., INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TEACHERS COLLEGE, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

    Antonio Gonzalez for Appellant.

    Ramon T. Jimenez for Appellee.


    SYLLABUS


    1. COURTS; JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT; HOW DETERMINED. — In civil cases, the jurisdiction of a court is made to depend, not upon the value or demand in each single cause of action contained in the complaint, but upon the totality of the demand in all the causes of action. The practice has always been to attend to the total amount demanded in the complaint, especially in the prayer, as determinative of the jurisdiction of the court.


    D E C I S I O N


    FELIX, J.:


    This is an appeal filed by the Manila Blue Printing Co., Inc., from an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila dismissing Civil Case No. 28089 of said court on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the same. The facts of the case are simple:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Manila Blue Printing Co., Inc., a corporation duly organized and doing business in the Philippines, filed a complaint with the Court of First Instance of Manila on November 9, 1955, against the Teachers College, Inc., a corporation with principal office at Tacloban, Leyte. It was alleged that in the months of July and August, 1952, defendant purchased from plaintiff merchandise consisting of school, office and engineering supplies, equipment and instruments worth P2,747.72. Of the said amount, defendant was able to pay only a total of P1,200, leaving a balance of P1,547.72. It was, therefore, prayed that defendant be ordered to pay plaintiff the sum of P1,547.72, with interest at 12% per annum from September, 1952; for damages in the sum of P500, representing attorney’s fees; and for costs.

    To this complaint, defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the Court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action in view of the fact that the claim was for an amount less than P2,000.00, exclusive of interests and attorney’s fees. Over plaintiff’s opposition, the lower court in its order of January 7, 1956, dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal having been denied, plaintiff brought the matter to this Court on appeal.

    In its complaint, plaintiff prays for the recovery of the alleged remaining unpaid account of defendant amounting to P1,547.72, with interest, together with the sum of P500.00 as attorney’s fees or a total of P2,047.72. In dismissing the action, the lower court probably was laboring under the impression that in determining the jurisdictional amount in a case brought before it, attorney’s fees should be excluded. This Court, however, has already passed upon this matter and in a long line of decided cases made it clear that in civil cases, the amount determinative of the jurisdiction of the court is the totality of the claim as demanded by the plaintiff and alleged in the complaint particularly in the prayer thereof. In the case of Tolsa v. Panlilio * 50 Off. Gaz., No. 6, p. 2505, an action to recover the amounts of P765.00 as indemnity, P98.00 as actual damages, P950.00 as consequential damages and P200.00 as attorney’s fees, or a total of P2,013.00 was held to be within the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance, the Court ruling that what determines the jurisdiction of a court is not the amount that plaintiff is entitled to recover under the allegations of the complaint and under the law, but the amount sought to be recovered, usually contained in the prayer. This pronouncement is merely a reiteration of the doctrine already laid down in Lim Bing It v. Ibañez, 92 Phil., 799; 49 Off. Gaz., [4], 1420. And the same principle was re-echoed when this Court declared that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Under the law now, as previously, the jurisdiction of a court is made to depend, not upon the value or demand in each single cause of action contained in the complaint but upon the totality of the demand in all the causes of action. . . . . The practice has always been to attend to the total amount demanded in the complaint, especially in the prayer, as determinative of the jurisdiction of the court" (Soriano v. Omila, 97 Phil., 62; 51 Off. Gaz. [7], 3465).

    Wherefore, the order of the Court of First Instance of Manila dismissing the complaint herein for an alleged lack of jurisdiction is set aside and the case is hereby remanded to the lower court for further proceedings. With costs against defendant Teachers College, Inc. It is so ordered.

    Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L. and Endencia, JJ., concur.

    Bautista Angelo, J., concurs in the result.

    Footnote

    * 95 Phil., 104.

    G.R. No. L-10911   March 21, 1958 - MANILA BLUE PRINTING CO. v. TEACHERS COLLEGE<br /><br />103 Phil 151




    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED