February 1961 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1961 > February 1961 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-14517 February 27, 1961 - SANDRA K. SHAOUY v. PHILIP E. SHAOUY:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-14517. February 27, 1961.]
SANDRA K. SHAOUY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PHILIP E. SHAOUY, Defendant-Appellant.
R E S O L U T I O N
CONCEPCION, J.:
In her complaint, plaintiff Sandra K. Shaouy prayed for judgment as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"That defendant be condemned to pay the plaintiff the amount of P120,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, with legal interest in both cases, from the date of the complaint until fully paid;
"2. That defendant be further condemned to pay the plaintiff attorney’s fees in the amount of P10,000.00, and also the costs of suit; and
"3. That plaintiff be granted such other and further relief as may in law and equity be deemed justifiable under the premises."cralaw virtua1aw library
In his answer, plaintiff’s husband, defendant Philip E. Shaouy, in turn, set up a counterclaim for P50,000.00, as actual, moral and punitive damages, aside from P10,000.00 as attorney’s fees. In due course, the Court of First Instance of Manila rendered a decision dismissing the complaint, as well as the counterclaim. Both parties appealed from said decision to the Court of Appeals, which certified the case to this Court, inasmuch as the claim of each party exceeded P50,000.00, which was the maximum of the value of controversies in civil cases then appealable to the Court of Appeals. Subsequently, however, the appellate jurisdiction thereof was extended to cases in which the value in controversy does not exceed P200,000.00, and none of the parties herein claim more than this sum.
In her brief, plaintiff-appellant raises, among other issues, a question of fact, namely, that "the lower court erred in not finding and declaring that the act of defendant in obtaining a divorce from the Nevada Court is unjust and malicious as to entitle the herein plaintiff to moral and exemplary damages under the law and jurisprudence on the matter." Similarly, Defendant-Appellant contends, in his brief, that "the lower court erred in not holding that plaintiff’s complaint was unfounded and malicious", thus raising another question of fact.
In view of the aggregate sum of money claimed by each party and the issues raised by both, the case is, therefore, within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals. Pursuant to section 31 of Republic Act No. 296, as amended by Republic Act No. 2613, the record of this case should, therefore, as it is hereby remanded, to the Court of Appeals for determination thereof in accordance with law. It is so ordered.
Padilla, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.
"That defendant be condemned to pay the plaintiff the amount of P120,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, with legal interest in both cases, from the date of the complaint until fully paid;
"2. That defendant be further condemned to pay the plaintiff attorney’s fees in the amount of P10,000.00, and also the costs of suit; and
"3. That plaintiff be granted such other and further relief as may in law and equity be deemed justifiable under the premises."cralaw virtua1aw library
In his answer, plaintiff’s husband, defendant Philip E. Shaouy, in turn, set up a counterclaim for P50,000.00, as actual, moral and punitive damages, aside from P10,000.00 as attorney’s fees. In due course, the Court of First Instance of Manila rendered a decision dismissing the complaint, as well as the counterclaim. Both parties appealed from said decision to the Court of Appeals, which certified the case to this Court, inasmuch as the claim of each party exceeded P50,000.00, which was the maximum of the value of controversies in civil cases then appealable to the Court of Appeals. Subsequently, however, the appellate jurisdiction thereof was extended to cases in which the value in controversy does not exceed P200,000.00, and none of the parties herein claim more than this sum.
In her brief, plaintiff-appellant raises, among other issues, a question of fact, namely, that "the lower court erred in not finding and declaring that the act of defendant in obtaining a divorce from the Nevada Court is unjust and malicious as to entitle the herein plaintiff to moral and exemplary damages under the law and jurisprudence on the matter." Similarly, Defendant-Appellant contends, in his brief, that "the lower court erred in not holding that plaintiff’s complaint was unfounded and malicious", thus raising another question of fact.
In view of the aggregate sum of money claimed by each party and the issues raised by both, the case is, therefore, within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals. Pursuant to section 31 of Republic Act No. 296, as amended by Republic Act No. 2613, the record of this case should, therefore, as it is hereby remanded, to the Court of Appeals for determination thereof in accordance with law. It is so ordered.
Padilla, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.
