Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > November 1968 Decisions > G.R. No. L-25589 November 29, 1968 - CITY OF LECAZPI v. ROBERTO ZURBANO:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-25589. November 29, 1968.]

CITY OF LECAZPI, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE ROBERTO ZURBANO, Judge of the CFI of Albay; ORESTES MAGDARAOG, SOCORRO AMADOS, LOURDES ANTIVOLA, RAFAELA YAN, CARLOS ARJONA, DOLOR BASALLOTE, Sr., DOLOR BASALLOTE, Jr., and EDWIN BASALLOTE, Respondents.

City Fiscal Aquilino P. Bonto for Petitioner.

Judge Roberto Zurbano in his own behalf as Respondent.

Miles L. Ludovice for other respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW COURTS; JURISDICTION; INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS DETERMINE JURISDICTION OF COURT. — The jurisdiction of a court is determined not by the aggregate but by the amount of each individual claim. The provisions of the Rules of Court concerning joinder of causes of action and permissive joinder of parties in whom or against whom any right to relief in respect to or arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions is alleged to exist are designed to save the parties unnecessary work, trouble and expense, and not to enlarge the court’s jurisdiction as applied to the amount in controversy. This design is apparent from the limitations expressed both in Section 5, Rule 2, Revised Rules of Court subject to the Rules regarding jurisdiction, venue and joinder of parties, as well as in Section 6, Rule 3, on permissive joinder of parties, except as otherwise provided in these rules. The latter proviso, in effect, reiterates the limitations expressed in Rule 2, Section 5.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; CONSTITUTION VESTS THE POWER TO DEFINE COURT’S JURISDICTION IN CONGRESS. — Section 2, Article VIII, of the Constitution expressly vests in Congress "the power to define, prescribe and apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts," so that in determining whether or not a case lies within or without the jurisdiction of a court, the statutory enactment is supreme.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; JUDICIARY ACT; SECTION 88 SPECIFIES COURT’S JURISDICTION OVER JOINED CLAIMS. — The latter portion of Section 88 of the Judiciary Act must be the sole standard to be reckoned with in determining the jurisdiction in civil actions where the claims or causes of action joined in a single complaint are separately owned by or are due to different parties; and it plainly states that the test for joined causes of action and parties shall be the individual claims and not their aggregate. No resort to the Rules of Court is permissible to circumvent the statutory prescription.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; AGGREGATION OF CLAIMS NOT DESIGNED TO ENLARGE JURISDICTION. — Where the claims aggregated to an amount beyond the jurisdiction of the Municipal Court but each individual claim lay within its jurisdiction, the aggregation could not be used to make up a jurisdictional amount that would vest power in the Court of First Instance to take cognizance of the case.

5. ID.; ID.; ID.; DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT. — Where several persons joined as plaintiffs in filing an action for damages in the Court of First Instance and the amount demanded by each of the plaintiffs did not exceed P10,000 - except one whose claim was P10,500 — the Court of First Instance was directed, on appeal, to dismiss the claims of the plaintiffs whose claims did not exceed P10,000 since they are within the jurisdiction of the proper municipal court, though they may be properly joined therein in one single complaint.


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J.B.L., J.:


Appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Albay, in its Civil Case No. 3032, overruling herein petitioner’s motion to dismiss and holding that said court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case.

Several persons had joined as plaintiffs in filing an action in the Court of First Instance for damages against the City of Legazpi, and other defendants (Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., Prudencio Barbudo, Antonio Arevalo and Mauro Nebreja). The complaint charged that on 4 December 1964, a fire truck, type 0-10, owned by the City of Legazpi, and driven by Prudencio Barbudo, due to the imprudence and recklessness of said driver and of his co-defendants, collided successively with a delivery truck of the Pepsi Cola Bottling Co., then passenger bus No. 4516 which was in the act of overtaking a parked sedan, and finally hit passenger bus No. PUB-4628. As a result, the latter vehicle (PUB-4628) was practically demolished, and several of its passengers were physically injured. Hence the suit, filed to recover alleged damages due to the following:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Juan Marbella (owner of bus PUB-4628) P10,500.00

Orestes Magdaraog (passenger) 2,500.00

Socorro Amados (passenger) 4,500,00

Lourdes Antivola (passenger) 2,500.00

Rafaela Yan (passenger) 500.00

Carlos Arjona (passenger) 500.00

Dolor and Edwin Basallote (passengers) 1,000.00

Attorney’s fees 5,000.00

In due time, the City of Legazpi interposed a motion praying that, with the exception of the claim of Juan Marbella, the complaint be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, because the amount demanded by each of the passenger plaintiffs, including the ratable share in the attorney’s fees, did not exceed P10,000.00 hence their claims were within the exclusive civil jurisdiction of the Municipal Court. In support of its move, the City of Legazpi invoked section 88 of the Judiciary Act (R.A. 296, as amended by R.A. 2613 and 3828):jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"‘Sec. 88. Original jurisdiction in civil cases. — In all civil actions, including those mentioned in Rules fifty-nine and sixty-two (now Rules 57 and 58) of the Rules of Court, arising in his municipality or city, and not exclusively cognizable by the Court of First Instance, the municipal judge and the judge of a city court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction where the value of the subject matter or amount of the demand does not exceed ten thousand pesos, exclusive of interests and costs. Where there are several claims or causes of action between the same parties embodied in the same complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the totality of the demand in all the causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the same or different transactions; but where the claims or causes of action joined in a single complaint are separately owned by or due to different parties, each separate claim shall furnish the jurisdictional test.’ (Italics supplied)"

The counsel for the plaintiffs objected. The court of First Instance sustained the objection, and overruled the motion to dismiss, holding that the case was within its jurisdiction, in view of Section 3 of Rule of Court 3, now Revised Rule 2, Section 5, that provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 5. Joinder of causes of action. — Subject to Rules regarding jurisdiction, venue and joinder of parties, a party may in one pleading state, in the alternative or otherwise, as many causes of action as he may have against an opposing party (a) if the said causes of action arise out of the same contract, transaction or relation between the parties, or (b) if the causes of action are for demands for money, or are of the same nature and character.

"In the cases falling under clause (a) of the preceding paragraph, the action shall be filed in the inferior court unless any of the causes joined falls within the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance, in which case it shall be filed in the latter court.

"In the cases falling under clause (b) the jurisdiction shall be determined by the aggregate amount of the demands, if for money, or by their nature and character, if otherwise."cralaw virtua1aw library

applied in International Colleges v. Argonza, 90 Phil. 470, and Soriano y Cia v. Jose, 86 Phil. 523.

Unable to secure reconsideration of the denial of its motion to dismiss, the City of Legazpi appealed directly to this Court, insisting that the Court of First Instance had no jurisdiction over the claims of plaintiffs, save that of Juan Marbella.

The issue, therefore, is whether jurisdiction should be determined by aggregate claims of all the injured passengers or by the amount of each individual claim.

We rule for the appellant. We have ruled in A. Soriano y Cia v. Jose, 86 Phil. 523, that the provisions of the Rules of Court, concerning joinder of causes of action and permissive joinder of parties "in whom or against whom any right to relief in respect to or arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions is alleged to exist," are designed to save the parties "unnecessary work, trouble and expense, . . . and not to enlarge the court’s jurisdiction as applied to the amount in controversy" (cas. cit. page 526). This design is apparent from the limitations expressed both in Section 5 of Revised Rule 2, "subject to the Rules regarding jurisdiction, venue and joinder of parties," as well as in Section 6, Rule 3, on permissive joinder of parties, "except as otherwise provided in these Rules." The latter proviso, in effect, reiterates the limitations expressed in Rule 2, Section 5.

And it could not be otherwise. The Constitution (Section 2, Article VIII) expressly vested in Congress "the power to define, prescribe and apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts", so that in determining whether or not a case lies within or without the jurisdiction of a court, the statutory enactment is supreme. The latter portion of Section 88 of the Judiciary Act (previously quoted) must be, therefore, the sole standard to be reckoned with, and it plainly states that the test for joined causes of action and parties shall be the individual claims, and not their aggregate. No resort to the Rules of Court is permissible to circumvent the statutory prescription.

Manifestly, the court below was misled by the fact that in International Colleges v. Argonza (supra) the claims aggregated to an amount beyond the jurisdiction of the Municipal Court; but each individual claim lay within its jurisdiction, and we held that the aggregation could not be used to make up a jurisdictional amount that would vest power in the Court of First Instance to take cognizance of the case.

WHEREFORE, the order of dismissal is annulled and set aside, except as to plaintiff Juan Marbella. The Court of First Instance is hereby directed to dismiss the claims of the other plaintiffs since they are within the jurisdiction of the proper municipal court, though they may properly be joined therein in one single complaint. Without costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Fernando and Capistrano, JJ., concur.




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






November-1968 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-29612 November 15, 1968 - LUCIANO A. SAULOG v. CUSTOMBUILT MANUFACTURING CORP, ET AL..

  • A.C. No. 555 November 25, 1968 - ERNESTO M. NOMBRADO v. JUANITO T. HERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. L-22508 November 25, 1968 - FLORO BUENCONSEJO v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET., AL

  • G.R. No. L-21757 November 26, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. KASILA SANGARAN

  • G.R. No. L-25858 November 26, 1968 - LU MING, ET., AL. v. VICENTE LOPEZ, ET., AL

  • G.R. No. L-25972 November 26, 1968 - LEONARDO C. GUTIERREZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET., AL

  • A.C. No. 217 November 27, 1968 - NIEVES RILLAS VDA. DE BARRERA v. CASIANO U. LAPUT

  • G.R. No. 20014 November 27, 1968 - FRANCISCO CRISOLOGO, ET., AL. v. ISAAC CENTENO, ET., AL

  • G.R. No. L-20075 November 27, 1968 - SOUTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY v. CENON LAURENTE

  • G.R. No. L-21545 November 27, 1968 - EUFEMIA RIVERA v. MARIA CONCEPCION PAEZ VDA. DE CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-22240 November 27, 1968 - SANTIAGO BALMONTE v. JULIAN MARCELO, ET., AL

  • G.R. No. L-22705 November 27, 1968 - ANTHONY CHAN v. OCEANIC WIRELESS NETWORK, INC.,

  • G.R. No. L-22717 November 27, 1968 - GEMINIANO L. GONZALES v. SATURNINA GONZALES, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25609 November 27, 1968 - MARGARET ANN WAINRIGHT VERSOZA, ET., AL. v. JOSE MA. VERSOZA

  • G.R. No. L-26461 November 27, 1968 - ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION v. JOSE C. BORROMEO, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26341 November 27, 1968 - ILOILO DOCK & ENGINEERING CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-23345 November 27, 1968 - DIONISIO ABENAZA, ET., AL v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-24624 November 27, 1968 - SINFOROSA ALCA v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-25372 November 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SENCIO GUTIERREZ, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29658 November 29, 1968 - ENRIQUE V. MORALES v. ABELARDO SUBIDO

  • G.R. No. L-23967 November 29, 1968 - ANTONINO M. MILANES v. EULOGIO F. DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. L-20390 November 29, 1968 - RAUL R. INGLES, ET., AL. v. AMELITO R. MUTUC, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23276 November 29, 1968 - MELECIO COQUIA, ET., AL. v. FIELDMEN’S INSURANCE CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-19143 November 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTOS RAMOS, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19196 November 29, 1968 - ANGEL VILLARICA, ET., AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET., AL

  • G.R. No. L-20121 November 29, 1968 - ALFREDO APAO, ET., AL. v. TITO V. TIZON, ET., AL

  • G.R. No. L-21725 November 29, 1968 - AURELIO ARCILLAS v. GREGORIO D. MONTEJO, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20768 November 29, 1968 - ELISEO B. LEMI v. BRIGIDO VALENCIA

  • G.R. No. L-22377 November 29, 1968 - MUNICIPALITY (now CITY) OF LEGASPI v. A.L. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-22243 November 29, 1968 - RILECO, INC., v. MINDANAO CONGRESS OF LABOR-RAMIE UNITED FARM WORKERS’ ASSOCIATION

  • G.R. No. L-22802 November 29, 1968 - MAXIMO H. GREGORIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23072 November 29, 1968 - SIMEON B. MIGUEL, ET AL., v. FLORENDO CATALINO

  • G.R. No. L-23145 November 29, 1968 - RENATO D. TAYAG v. BENGUET CONSOLIDATED, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-23428 November 29, 1968 - DETECTIVE & PROTECTIVE BUREAU, INC. v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL

  • G.R. No. L-23971 November 29, 1968 - ASSOCIATED INSURANCE& SURETY CO., INC., v. ANTONIO BANZON, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24019 November 29, 1968 - PHILIPPINE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION, ET., AL. v. MLQSEA FACULTY ASSOCIATION, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24963 November 29, 1968 - G. LINER v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-2509 November 29, 1968 - NILDA SURA v. VICENTE SILVESTRE MARTIN, SR.

  • G.R. No. L-25589 November 29, 1968 - CITY OF LECAZPI v. ROBERTO ZURBANO

  • G.R. No. L-25677 November 29, 1968 - JOVITO O. VITANZO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-26082 November 29, 1968 - NORBERTO DE LA REA v. ABELARDO SUBIDO

  • G.R. No. L-27145 November 29, 1968 - MARIQUITA LUNA v. GERONIMO CARANDANG

  • G.R. No. L-27511 November 29, 1968 - SIMON LUNA v. LORENZO M. PLAZA

  • G.R. No. L-27852 November 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDDIE BUENBRAZO

  • G.R. No. L-29696 November 29, 1968 - JESUS GIGANTE v. REPUBLIC SAVINGS BANK, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29766 November 29, 1968 - PERMANENT CONCRETE PRODUCTS, INC. v. DONATO TEODORO

  • G.R. No. L-20352 November 29, 1968 - LILIA YUSAY GONZALEZ v. HON. WENCESLAO L. FERNAN, ET., AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-18660 & L-18661 November 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE ALTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21362 November 29, 1968 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHIL. v. LOURDES GASPAR BAUTISTA