January 1964 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1964 > January 1964 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-18776 January 30, 1964 - URBANO SAPICO, ET AL. v. MANILA OCEANIC LINES, INC., ET AL.:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-18776. January 30, 1964.]
URBANO SAPICO, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MANILA OCEANIC LINES, INC., ET AL., Defendants, MANILA OCEANIC LINES, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
Beltran & Lacson for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
Jaime R. Nuevas, for Defendant-Appellant.
SYLLABUS
1. COURTS; JURISDICTION; AMOUNT CLAIMED BY ANY OF SEVERAL PARTIES JOINED IN ONE COMPLAINT DETERMINES JURISDICTION OF COURT. — Defendant-appellant contended that if the total amount claimed be divided among the several claimants the claim of each would not reach the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance, but it appeared that one of said claimants demanded in the complaint P10,000 as damages, plus the amount of his claimed pay: Held: the contention that the case does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance, is without merit.
D E C I S I O N
LABRADOR, J p::chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila sentencing defendants to pay plaintiffs P24,570.76 as unpaid wages and P5,000.00 as attorney’s fees, for the officers and crew of a vessel to be brought from Hongkong to Manila for the account of defendants.
The complaint filed in the case contained 3 causes of action, (1) to collect P24,570.76 representing unpaid wages as per contract, (2) moral damages at the rate of P10,000.00 for the Master, and P5,000.00 each for each marine officer, including radio officer, P2,000.00 for each crew member or a total of P111,000.00 and (3) P5,000.00 attorney’s fees. It is contended on the appeal that if the amount claimed totalling P140,570.76 be divided among the 38 members and officers of the crew, each would be demanding only P3,699.23-1/19, which claim does not reach the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance where the action was brought. But the second cause of action of the complaint alleged that the captain demanded P10,000.00 as damages, plus the amount of his pay. The claim, therefore, that the case does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance, is without merit.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs. So ordered.
Bengzon, C.J., and Reyes, J .B .L . J., took no part.
Reyes, J .B .L ., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila sentencing defendants to pay plaintiffs P24,570.76 as unpaid wages and P5,000.00 as attorney’s fees, for the officers and crew of a vessel to be brought from Hongkong to Manila for the account of defendants.
The complaint filed in the case contained 3 causes of action, (1) to collect P24,570.76 representing unpaid wages as per contract, (2) moral damages at the rate of P10,000.00 for the Master, and P5,000.00 each for each marine officer, including radio officer, P2,000.00 for each crew member or a total of P111,000.00 and (3) P5,000.00 attorney’s fees. It is contended on the appeal that if the amount claimed totalling P140,570.76 be divided among the 38 members and officers of the crew, each would be demanding only P3,699.23-1/19, which claim does not reach the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance where the action was brought. But the second cause of action of the complaint alleged that the captain demanded P10,000.00 as damages, plus the amount of his pay. The claim, therefore, that the case does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance, is without merit.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs. So ordered.
Bengzon, C.J., and Reyes, J .B .L . J., took no part.
Reyes, J .B .L ., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
