November 1961 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1961 > November 1961 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-15747 November 3, 1961 - VICTORIANO GUNDRAN, ET AL v. RED LINE TRANS., CO. INC. :
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-15747. November 3, 1961.]
VICTORIANO GUNDRAN, CECILIA DUQUE, SALVADOR ESQUILLO, FILOMENA ESGUIERRA, ROSALINDA CIPRIANO, MARIANO BANTIQUE, RUFINA BANTIQUE, JOVITA BANTIQUE, BENITO BANTIQUE, TEOFILO CALUBAQUIB, AURORA BAQUIRAN, ESMERALDA SIRIBAN, DOMINGO BALAO, GREGORIO BALAO, EULOGIO BALAO, QUINTIN BALAO, OLIMPIA BALAO, LUISA BALAO, RUFINA BALAO, SERVANDO BALAO, RODOLFO BALAO, ADRIANO FLORES, HILARIO LAURENTE, FILOMENA LAURENTE, MONICO LAURENTE and ZOILO CARONAN, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE RED LINE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
Singson & Singson, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Manuel O. Chan, for Defendant-Appellee.
R E S O L U T I O N
DE LEON, J.:
This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Cagayan dismissing plaintiffs-appellants’ complaint against the defendant-appellee, Red Line Transportation Co., Inc., for damages resulting from the death of their relatives who perished when the motorboat capsized in the Cagayan river sometime in February, 1953. The amounts prayed for, alleged to represent actual, mental, moral, exemplary and compensatory damages suffered by the different plaintiffs, respectively, as heirs of the deceased, are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1. Victoriano Gundran, as heir of the deceased
Teodora Gundran P21,580.00
2. Filemon Esguierra, as heir of the deceased
Exequiel, Tranquillino and Lucinito Manguba P70,553.00
3. Cecilia Duque, as heir of Mariano Espiritu 26,000.00
4. Salvador Esquillo, as heir of Domingo Esquillo 21,000.00
5. Rosalinda Cipriano, as heir of Luciano Pacis 26,000.00
6. Mariano Bantique, as heir of Mariano Bantique, Jr. 21,000.00
7. Mariano, Rufina, Jovita and Benito Bantique,
as heirs of Concepcion Bantique 43,200.00
8. Teofilo Calubaquib, as heirs of Margarita Tamayao 21,000.00
9. Aurora Baquiran, as heirs of Ciriaco Siriban 26,000.00
10. Esmeralda Siriban, as heir of Pio Balisi 26,000.00
11. Domingo, Gregorio, Eulogio, Quintin, Luisa, Rufina,
Servando and Rodolfo Balao, as heirs of Maria Balao 38,196.00
12. Adriano Flores, as heir of his son 21,000.00
13. Hilario, Filomena and Monico Laurente,
as heirs of Bartolome and Catalina Laurente 47,000.00
13. Zoilo Caronan, as heirs of Rodolfo Caronan 21,000.00
The issues raised being mostly factual, the appeal was taken to the Court of Appeals, but that court, on April 29, 1959, certified the case to Us on the ground that the amount involved exceeds P50,000.00. Obviously, the certification was made before Republic Act No. 2613 was approved and took effect on August 1, 1959. This Act, amending the Judiciary Act of 1948, has increased the amount of controversy over which the Supreme Court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction from P50,000.00 to P200,000.00.
After going over the record, We find that, as shown above, although the sums claimed by all the appellants aggregate to P429,529.00, the individual claims, and not the totality of such claims, that is determinative of jurisdiction in this case, because the amounts prayed for are alleged to be separately due to the different appellants (See sec. 88 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended; Santiago Sambrano, Et. Al. v. Rehabilitation Finance Corporation, G.R. No. L-13300, April 30, 1960), and it appearing that most of the errors assigned involve questions of fact, the appeal clearly comes within the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby certified back to the Court of Appeals for determination in accordance with law.
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.
1. Victoriano Gundran, as heir of the deceased
Teodora Gundran P21,580.00
2. Filemon Esguierra, as heir of the deceased
Exequiel, Tranquillino and Lucinito Manguba P70,553.00
3. Cecilia Duque, as heir of Mariano Espiritu 26,000.00
4. Salvador Esquillo, as heir of Domingo Esquillo 21,000.00
5. Rosalinda Cipriano, as heir of Luciano Pacis 26,000.00
6. Mariano Bantique, as heir of Mariano Bantique, Jr. 21,000.00
7. Mariano, Rufina, Jovita and Benito Bantique,
as heirs of Concepcion Bantique 43,200.00
8. Teofilo Calubaquib, as heirs of Margarita Tamayao 21,000.00
9. Aurora Baquiran, as heirs of Ciriaco Siriban 26,000.00
10. Esmeralda Siriban, as heir of Pio Balisi 26,000.00
11. Domingo, Gregorio, Eulogio, Quintin, Luisa, Rufina,
Servando and Rodolfo Balao, as heirs of Maria Balao 38,196.00
12. Adriano Flores, as heir of his son 21,000.00
13. Hilario, Filomena and Monico Laurente,
as heirs of Bartolome and Catalina Laurente 47,000.00
13. Zoilo Caronan, as heirs of Rodolfo Caronan 21,000.00
The issues raised being mostly factual, the appeal was taken to the Court of Appeals, but that court, on April 29, 1959, certified the case to Us on the ground that the amount involved exceeds P50,000.00. Obviously, the certification was made before Republic Act No. 2613 was approved and took effect on August 1, 1959. This Act, amending the Judiciary Act of 1948, has increased the amount of controversy over which the Supreme Court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction from P50,000.00 to P200,000.00.
After going over the record, We find that, as shown above, although the sums claimed by all the appellants aggregate to P429,529.00, the individual claims, and not the totality of such claims, that is determinative of jurisdiction in this case, because the amounts prayed for are alleged to be separately due to the different appellants (See sec. 88 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended; Santiago Sambrano, Et. Al. v. Rehabilitation Finance Corporation, G.R. No. L-13300, April 30, 1960), and it appearing that most of the errors assigned involve questions of fact, the appeal clearly comes within the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby certified back to the Court of Appeals for determination in accordance with law.
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.
