SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-54097 September 30, 1981

ROMEO N. GUMBA, Petitioner, vs. JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT OF CAMARINES SUR AND THE CITIES OF NAGA and IRIGA and HAIDE B. VISTA-GUMBA Respondents.chanrobles virtual law library

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.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

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).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

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, judgment became final and executory.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

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.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

On August 21, 1978, she sued Romeo in the Juvenile and Domestic Relation 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).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Romeo filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the five year period for the 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.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Romeo filed in the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari dated March 17, 1980 wherein bhe 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 jurisdication (CA-G. R. No. 10542-SP).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The issues are whether the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court has jurisdication 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.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

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 jurisdication and transfer of cases:chanrobles virtual law library

SECTION 1. The Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. -

xxx xxx xxxchanrobles virtual law library

Provisions of the Judiciary Act to the contrary notwithstanding, the court shall have exclusive original jurisdication to hear and decide the following cases:chanrobles virtual law library

xxx xxx xxxchanrobles virtual law library

(c) Annulment of marriages, relief from marital obigations, legal separation of spouses, and actions for support;

xxx xxx xxxchanrobles virtual law library

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 icty courts in the Province of Camarines Sur and the Cities of Naga and Iriga, properly cognizable by said court to be transferred thereto.

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 datee, pending before the Courts of Frist Instnace, 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).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

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 seperate and distinct from Civil Case No. 7334 (R-799) of the Court of first Instance.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

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.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

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 the date of the judicial demand for suppport.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

That case is within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. The casue of action for revival fof the 1974 judgment may be disregarded as not being in order because the judgment for support does not beocme dormant and the five-year peiord for executing it by motion does not apply thereto (Velayo vs. Velayo, L-23538, July 21, 1967, 20 SCRA 734, 65 O.G. 2096).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

With respect to the transfer of the expediente of Civil Case No. 7334, that cannot be allowd since it was not a pending case when the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court was organzied 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 Domestice Relations Court.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

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.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

JDRC Judge Ma. Rosario Quetulio-Losa did not err in denying Remeo N. Gumba's motion to dismiss and in setting Civl Case No. 81 for pre-trial.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

WHEREFORE, the petition is dimissed and the restraining order issued by the Court of Appeals is dissolved. Costs against the petitioner.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

SO ORDERED.