September 1981 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1981 > September 1981 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-54097 September 30, 1981 - ROMEO N. GUMBA v. JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT OF CAMARINES SUR, ET AL.:
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. L-54097. September 30, 1981.]
ROMEO N. GUMBA, Petitioner, v. JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT OF CAMARINES SUR AND THE CITIES OF NAGA and IRIGA and HAIDE B. VISTA-GUMBA, Respondents.
Romeo N. Gumba for Petitioner.
Haide B. Vista-Gumba in his own behalf.
SYNOPSIS
In Civil Case No. 7334 for support, filed with the Court of First Instance before jurisdiction over actions for support were transferred to the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, the former court rendered a decision in 1974 ordering the petitioner to pay his wife, whom he had abandoned, seventy-five pesos monthly for the support of their child. No support was adjudged in the wife’s favor since she was then gainfully employed. Thereafter, petitioner rejoined his wife and lived with her in an apartment until 1978 when he abandoned her again and refused to support her and their child. The wife thus sued petitioner in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court for revival of the 1974 judgment, and as a second cause of action asked that petitioner be ordered to pay P950.00 monthly for the support of their child and herself as she was then already jobless. Petitioner moved to dismiss, assailing the jurisdiction of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court over the action on the grounds that the five-year period for executing the 1974 judgment by writ of execution had not yet expired, and that the modification of that judgment was within the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance. His motion denied, petitioner filed his petition for certiorari which was certified to the Supreme Court by the Court of Appeals.
The Supreme Court held, that the complaint filed with the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, based on the inadequacy of support awarded to the child in 1974 and the necessity of support for the wife, over which action the juvenile court had jurisdiction, should be regarded as a new action separate and distinct from the case decided by the Court of First Instance; that the cause of action for revival of the 1974 judgment may be disregarded as not being in order because the judgment for support does not become dormant and the five-year period for executing it by motion does not apply thereto; and, that the transfer of the expediente of Civil Case No. 7334 to the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court cannot be allowed since it was not a pending case when the said court was organized in 1976.
Petition dismissed.
The Supreme Court held, that the complaint filed with the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, based on the inadequacy of support awarded to the child in 1974 and the necessity of support for the wife, over which action the juvenile court had jurisdiction, should be regarded as a new action separate and distinct from the case decided by the Court of First Instance; that the cause of action for revival of the 1974 judgment may be disregarded as not being in order because the judgment for support does not become dormant and the five-year period for executing it by motion does not apply thereto; and, that the transfer of the expediente of Civil Case No. 7334 to the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court cannot be allowed since it was not a pending case when the said court was organized in 1976.
Petition dismissed.
SYLLABUS
1. REMEDIAL LAW; JURISDICTION OF COURTS; JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER ACTIONS FOR SUPPORT. — Republic Act No. 6591, which took effect on September 30, 1972 and which created the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court for Camarines Sur and the Cities of Naga and Iriga, vests upon said court, among others, jurisdiction over actions for support, pursuant to which the Chief Justice in Administrative Order No. 4 dated February 3, 1976 directed that "all cases and proceedings, except those that have already been submitted for decision as of this date, pending before the Court of First Instance, Circuit Criminal Court, City Courts and Municipal Courts within the Province of Camarines Sur and the Cities of Naga and Iriga, which are within the jurisdiction of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court for the Province of Camarines Sur and the Cities of Naga and Iriga," should be transferred to the latter court (O.G. 2050). Thus, in the instant case, petitioner may not claim that the Court of First Instance had jurisdiction over the new action for support filed by respondent which was based on the inadequacy of the support awarded to the child in Civil Case No. 7334 by the Court of First Instance in 1974 and the necessity of giving support to the mother who had a job in 1974 when Civil Case No. 7334 was decided but who was jobless in 1978 when the new case was filed. The new complaint covers a period starting on April 27, 1978, when petitioner abandoned her respondent wife for the second time, or at least from August 21, 1978, when the complaint was filed and which is, therefore, the date of the judicial demand for support.
2. ID.; CIVIL PROCEDURE; JUDGMENT; JUDGMENT FOR SUPPORT DOES NOT BECOME DORMANT; CASE AT BAR. — A judgment for support does not become dormant and the five-year period for executing it by motion does not apply thereto (Velayo v. Velayo, L-23538, July 21, 1967, 20 SCRA 734, 650 O.G. 2096). Thus, in the case at bar, private respondent’s other cause of action in her suit filed with the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court in 1978, i.e., for the revival of the 1974 judgment for support rendered by the Court of First Instance in Civil Case No. 7334, may be disregarded as not being in order. The Court of First Instance should be the one to resolve the pending incidents in Civil Case No. 7334 and should enforce the 1974 judgment in that case which judgment will not be affected by the judgment to be rendered by the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court in the second action filed by private respondent based on the inadequacy of the support awarded to the child in the first case and the necessity of giving support to the mother who had a job when the first case was decided but who was jobless when the new case was filed.
2. ID.; CIVIL PROCEDURE; JUDGMENT; JUDGMENT FOR SUPPORT DOES NOT BECOME DORMANT; CASE AT BAR. — A judgment for support does not become dormant and the five-year period for executing it by motion does not apply thereto (Velayo v. Velayo, L-23538, July 21, 1967, 20 SCRA 734, 650 O.G. 2096). Thus, in the case at bar, private respondent’s other cause of action in her suit filed with the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court in 1978, i.e., for the revival of the 1974 judgment for support rendered by the Court of First Instance in Civil Case No. 7334, may be disregarded as not being in order. The Court of First Instance should be the one to resolve the pending incidents in Civil Case No. 7334 and should enforce the 1974 judgment in that case which judgment will not be affected by the judgment to be rendered by the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court in the second action filed by private respondent based on the inadequacy of the support awarded to the child in the first case and the necessity of giving support to the mother who had a job when the first case was decided but who was jobless when the new case was filed.
D E C I S I O N
AQUINO, J.:
The spouses Romeo N. Gumba and Haide B. Vista, both lawyers, were married in 1968. They lived with Haide’s parents in Naga City. Some months after the marriage, Romeo left Haide and lived in Canaman, Camarines Sur with his concubine, Josefina Ballena, and their two children. Haide was then pregnant. On August 19, 1969, she gave birth to a baby girl who was named Romy Fay.
In 1972, Haide sued Romeo for support. The Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, Naga City Branch II, in a decision dated February 14, 1974, ordered Romeo to pay Haide "in advance every month" seventy-five pesos for the support of their child and past support at the same rate as of July 7, 1972 (when the complaint was filed) plus five hundred pesos as attorney’s fees (Civil Case No. 7334).
No support was adjudged in favor of Haide because she was working as legal officer of the regional health office at P472 per month. Romeo did not appeal. So, that judgment became final and executory.
On December 17, 1974, Romeo rejoined Haide and lived with her in an apartment at Naga City. On April 27, 1978, he again abandoned her and refused to pay the rental for the apartment and to support her and their child. Haide was constrained once more to go to court.
On August 21, 1978, she sued Romeo in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court in Naga City for the revival of the judgment against him. As a second cause of action, she asked that Romeo be ordered to pay P950 (instead of P75) a month for the support of their child and of herself because she was no longer gainfully employed (Civil Case No. 81).
Romeo filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the five-year period for executing the judgment by writ of execution had not yet expired and that the modification of that judgment is within the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance. The motion was denied by the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court in its orders of December 14, 1979 and March 6, 1980.cralawnad
Romeo filed in the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari dated March 17, 1980 wherein he prayed for the annulment of the order of December 14, 1979. After the respondents had filed their comments, the Court of Appeals in its resolution of May 23, 1980 certified the case to this Court because it involves the trial court’s jurisdiction (CA-G.R. No. 10542-SP).
The issues are whether the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court has jurisdiction over the action filed by Haide and whether the record of Civil Case No. 7334 of the Court of First Instance should be transferred to the special court.
Republic Act No. 6591, which took effect on September 30, 1972, created the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court for Camarines Sur and the Cities of Naga and Iriga. It contains the following provisions on jurisdiction and transfer of cases:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"SECTION 1. The Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. —
"Provisions of the Judiciary Act to the contrary notwithstanding, the court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and decide the following cases:chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
"(c) Annulment of marriages, relief from marital obligations, legal separation of spouses, and actions for support;
"SEC. 9. Transitory provisions. — Upon the organization of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, the Secretary of Justice shall cause all cases and proceedings pending before the courts of first instance, municipal courts and city courts in the Province of Camarines Sur and the Cities of Naga and Iriga, properly cognizable by said court to be transferred thereto."cralaw virtua1aw library
The Chief Justice in Administrative Order No. 4 dated February 3, 1976 directed that "all cases and proceedings, except those that have already been submitted for decision as of this date, pending before the Courts of First Instance, Circuit Criminal Court, City Courts and Municipal Courts within the Province of Camarines Sur and the Cities of Naga and Iriga, which are within the jurisdiction of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court for the Province of Camarines Sur and the Cities of Naga and Iriga," should be transferred to the latter court (72 O.G. 2050).
We hold that the complaint by Haide in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, Civil Case No. 81, should be regarded as a new action which is separate and distinct from Civil Case No. 7334 (R-799) of the Court of First Instance.
The new action is based on the inadequacy of the support awarded to the child in Civil Case No. 7334 and the necessity for giving support to the mother who had a job in 1974 when Civil Case No. 7334 was decided but who was jobless in 1978 when the new case was filed.
The complaint in Civil Case No. 81 covers a period starting on April 27, 1978, when Romeo abandoned Haide for the second time, or at least from August 21, 1978, when the complaint was filed and which is, therefore, the date of the judicial demand for support.
That case is within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. The cause of action for revival of the 1974 judgment may be disregarded as not being in order because the judgment for support does not become dormant and the five-year period for executing it by motion does not apply thereto (Velayo v. Velayo, L-23538, July 21, 1967, 20 SCRA 734, 65 O.G. 2096).
With respect to the transfer of the expediente of Civil Case No. 7334, that cannot be allowed since it was not a pending case when the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court was organized in 1976. The original record of the case was destroyed. Only the decision was reconstituted and a copy of that decision already forms part of the record of Civil Case No. 81 of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red
The Court of First Instance should be the one to resolve the pending incidents in Civil Case No. 7334 and should enforce the 1974 judgment in that case which judgment will not be affected by the judgment to be rendered in Civil Case No. 81. The two cases are independent of each other.
JDRC Judge Ma. Rosario Quetulio-Losa did not err in denying Romeo N. Gumba’s motion to dismiss and in setting Civil Case No. 81 for pre-trial.
WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed and the restraining order issued by the Court of Appeals is dissolved. Costs against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Barredo (Chairman), Concepcion Jr., Fernandez and De Castro, JJ., concur.
Abad Santos, J., is on leave.
Fernandez, J., was designated to sit in the Second Division.
In 1972, Haide sued Romeo for support. The Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, Naga City Branch II, in a decision dated February 14, 1974, ordered Romeo to pay Haide "in advance every month" seventy-five pesos for the support of their child and past support at the same rate as of July 7, 1972 (when the complaint was filed) plus five hundred pesos as attorney’s fees (Civil Case No. 7334).
No support was adjudged in favor of Haide because she was working as legal officer of the regional health office at P472 per month. Romeo did not appeal. So, that judgment became final and executory.
On December 17, 1974, Romeo rejoined Haide and lived with her in an apartment at Naga City. On April 27, 1978, he again abandoned her and refused to pay the rental for the apartment and to support her and their child. Haide was constrained once more to go to court.
On August 21, 1978, she sued Romeo in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court in Naga City for the revival of the judgment against him. As a second cause of action, she asked that Romeo be ordered to pay P950 (instead of P75) a month for the support of their child and of herself because she was no longer gainfully employed (Civil Case No. 81).
Romeo filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the five-year period for executing the judgment by writ of execution had not yet expired and that the modification of that judgment is within the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance. The motion was denied by the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court in its orders of December 14, 1979 and March 6, 1980.cralawnad
Romeo filed in the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari dated March 17, 1980 wherein he prayed for the annulment of the order of December 14, 1979. After the respondents had filed their comments, the Court of Appeals in its resolution of May 23, 1980 certified the case to this Court because it involves the trial court’s jurisdiction (CA-G.R. No. 10542-SP).
The issues are whether the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court has jurisdiction over the action filed by Haide and whether the record of Civil Case No. 7334 of the Court of First Instance should be transferred to the special court.
Republic Act No. 6591, which took effect on September 30, 1972, created the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court for Camarines Sur and the Cities of Naga and Iriga. It contains the following provisions on jurisdiction and transfer of cases:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"SECTION 1. The Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. —
x x x
"Provisions of the Judiciary Act to the contrary notwithstanding, the court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and decide the following cases:chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
x x x
"(c) Annulment of marriages, relief from marital obligations, legal separation of spouses, and actions for support;
x x x
"SEC. 9. Transitory provisions. — Upon the organization of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, the Secretary of Justice shall cause all cases and proceedings pending before the courts of first instance, municipal courts and city courts in the Province of Camarines Sur and the Cities of Naga and Iriga, properly cognizable by said court to be transferred thereto."cralaw virtua1aw library
The Chief Justice in Administrative Order No. 4 dated February 3, 1976 directed that "all cases and proceedings, except those that have already been submitted for decision as of this date, pending before the Courts of First Instance, Circuit Criminal Court, City Courts and Municipal Courts within the Province of Camarines Sur and the Cities of Naga and Iriga, which are within the jurisdiction of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court for the Province of Camarines Sur and the Cities of Naga and Iriga," should be transferred to the latter court (72 O.G. 2050).
We hold that the complaint by Haide in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, Civil Case No. 81, should be regarded as a new action which is separate and distinct from Civil Case No. 7334 (R-799) of the Court of First Instance.
The new action is based on the inadequacy of the support awarded to the child in Civil Case No. 7334 and the necessity for giving support to the mother who had a job in 1974 when Civil Case No. 7334 was decided but who was jobless in 1978 when the new case was filed.
The complaint in Civil Case No. 81 covers a period starting on April 27, 1978, when Romeo abandoned Haide for the second time, or at least from August 21, 1978, when the complaint was filed and which is, therefore, the date of the judicial demand for support.
That case is within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. The cause of action for revival of the 1974 judgment may be disregarded as not being in order because the judgment for support does not become dormant and the five-year period for executing it by motion does not apply thereto (Velayo v. Velayo, L-23538, July 21, 1967, 20 SCRA 734, 65 O.G. 2096).
With respect to the transfer of the expediente of Civil Case No. 7334, that cannot be allowed since it was not a pending case when the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court was organized in 1976. The original record of the case was destroyed. Only the decision was reconstituted and a copy of that decision already forms part of the record of Civil Case No. 81 of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red
The Court of First Instance should be the one to resolve the pending incidents in Civil Case No. 7334 and should enforce the 1974 judgment in that case which judgment will not be affected by the judgment to be rendered in Civil Case No. 81. The two cases are independent of each other.
JDRC Judge Ma. Rosario Quetulio-Losa did not err in denying Romeo N. Gumba’s motion to dismiss and in setting Civil Case No. 81 for pre-trial.
WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed and the restraining order issued by the Court of Appeals is dissolved. Costs against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Barredo (Chairman), Concepcion Jr., Fernandez and De Castro, JJ., concur.
Abad Santos, J., is on leave.
Fernandez, J., was designated to sit in the Second Division.
