FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 92625 : December 26, 1990.]
192 SCRA 768
JOSE ORDA and IMELDA LOZADA, Petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT
OF APPEALS and GIL GALANG Respondents.
DECISION
SO ORDERED. 2
GANCAYCO, J.:
The question presented in this case is whether or not the Court of Appeals may refer
a petition for habeas corpus originally filed with it to the Regional Trial Court for a fullblown trial due to conflicting facts presented by the parties.
Originally, private respondent filed a petition for habeas corpus with the Regional Trial
Court of San Pablo City to regain custody of his minor daughter, Joyce, who
continued staying with her maternal grandparents, petitioners herein, her mother
being already deceased at the initiation of the action. The case was eventually
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because petitioners, as defendants therein, had
moved to Bataan and any writ of habeas corpus to be issued by the trial court may
not be enforced against them.
In conformity with the foregoing decision the Regional Trial Court of San Pablo City,
the Hon. Napoleon R. Flojo presiding, before which private respondent filed his first
action, ordered the reinstatement of Special Proceedings No. SP-719 (87) and
scheduled the case for trial on the merits. 3 Upon examination of the records of said
case, petitioners noted that only the order of dismissal of the same was in the
expediente of the case. They brought this matter to the attention of the trial court
which then issued an order dated 27 January 1989 directing the Chief, Archives
Section of the Court of Appeals "to transmit to this Court the original record of case
AC-G.R. No. SP-13912 (sic) immediately upon receipt of this Order." 4
Subsequently, private respondent, on the basis of his being the sole surviving parent
of his daughter, filed a petition for habeas corpus with the respondent Court of
Appeals docketed as CA-G.R. No. 13912-SP, an original action to compel petitioners
to produce the body of minor Joyce Orda Galang and explain the basis of their
custody. Petitioners herein filed their Opposition/Answer 1 alleging that private
respondent abandoned his wife and child, had no source of livelihood and therefore
could not support his daughter, they prayed that care and custody of the child be
awarded them.: rd
In reply, the respondent Court of Appeals advised the trial court that no records can
be remanded because no expediente from the lower court was ever elevated. For this
reason, petitioners filed with respondent court on 21 April 1989 a Motion for
Clarification of its earlier decision alleging that CA-G.R. No. SP-13912 was an original
action, not an appeal emanating from, or a special civil action to assail, a case filed
with the trial court, hence no record of the case can be remanded because no
expediente from the lower court was ever elevated to the Court of Appeals; that
Special Proceedings No. SP-719 (87) was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and the
order of dismissal has long become final and, moreover, herein petitioners were never
brought to the jurisdiction of the trial court in said special proceedings, so much so
that they have not even presented an answer or opposition in said special
proceedings; and that a reinstatement of Special Proceedings No. SP-719 (87), over
which the trial court had lost jurisdiction, may not be justified by virtue of the order of
the Court of Appeals to remand CA-G.R. No. 13912 for trial on the merits. 5
At the outset, it is necessary to point out that this Court entertained this petition for
Habeas Corpus in the exercise of its original jurisdiction over such case. Said petition
is in no way connected with the one dismissed by the lower court in SP-719 (87).
In their Motion for Clarification, [petitioners] appear to be confused by this Court's
directive remanding the case to the lower court.
It should be noted that when this Court ordered the same, it did not mean the
remanding of the records, but (the) referring (of) the case to the court a quo for
appropriate action, it enjoying original and concurrent jurisdiction with this Court over
habeas corpus cases (B.P. 129).:-cralaw
matter. Clearly, therefore, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 provides the basis for Us to refer
AC (sic) G.R. SP No. 13912 to the lower court for trial on the merits. With the referral
of AC (sic) G.R. SP No. 13912, the jurisdiction which this Court acquired over the
persons of [petitioners] was transferred to and conferred upon the Regional Trial
Court, which necessarily must treat said case as a separate and distinct proceeding
from the one it earlier dismissed. This means that the Regional Trial Court must
assign the referred case a new number, but need not require the [private respondent]
to remit the prescribed docketing fee inasmuch as the same had already been paid
with this Court. What the parties need to do though is to reproduce the pleadings they
filed in AC (sic) G.R. SP No. 13912 before the Regional Trial Court in order for issues
to be joined therein.- nad
Accordingly, the dispositive portion of the Decision dated April 13, 1988 is hereby
further clarified to read thus:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court hereby decides to REFER
this case to the regional Trial Court, Branch 31, San Pablo City, for trial on
the merits as to which of the parties are legally entitled to the custody of the
child, Joyce Orda Galang. FOR THIS PURPOSE, THE PARTIES ARE
DIRECTED TO REPRODUCE ALL THE PLEADINGS THEY FILED IN AC
(sic) G.R. SP NO. 13912 BEFORE THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, UPON
THE RECEIPT OF WHICH, SHALL ASSIGN THE CASE A NEW NUMBER
WITHOUT REQUIRING [private respondent] TO PAY THE DOCKETING
FEE."
SO ORDERED. 9
In this special civil action for Certiorari petitioners assign the following as errors
committed by the Court of Appeals:
1. Respondent Court of Appeals erred, as it is without authority [to do so], in
referring the original action for habeas corpus filed before it to the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 31, San Pablo City, for trial on the merits to
determine the issue as to which of the parties are legally entitled to the
custody of the child, its reliance on Section 9[1] in relation to Section 21
of B.P. Blg. 21 being specious.
2. Respondent Court of Appeals erred in ordering the parties to the original
action for habeas corpus filed before it to reproduce before the Regional
Trial Court all the pleadings they filed in AC-G.R. SP No. 13912 (sic).
3. Respondent Court of Appeals erred, as it is without authority [to do so], in
directing the Regional Trial Court, Branch 31, San Pablo City, to assign
the case a new case number without requiring herein private
respondent (as petitioner therein) to pay the docket fee therefor. 10
There is merit in the contentions of petitioners.
Essentially, petitioners argue that the Court of Appeals has no power to issue the
decision remanding the proceedings to the trial court and the two subsequent
resolutions clarifying the same.
Under the foregoing disquisition, the Court of Appeals was in error in ordering the
remand and later on the referral of the original petition for habeas corpus filed with it
to the Regional Trial Court. What respondent court should have done was to conduct
the reception of evidence and pass upon the merits of the conflicting allegations of
the parties insofar as the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is concerned.
While We agree with the conclusion reached by respondent court that the case
requires a full-blown trial of the facts, the same should be done in the context of the
special proceedings for custody of minors under Rule 99 of the Rules of Court, and
not a remand or referral of the original action for a writ of habeas corpus filed with the
respondent court. Parenthetically, the proper venue in this action is the place where
the petitioner therein resides. 14 Petitioners' third assigned error is disposed of
accordingly.
WHEREFORE, the petition for Certiorari is hereby GRANTED. The assailed decision
and resolutions of the respondent Court of Appeals are SET ASIDE and a new one is
rendered DISMISSING the petition for habeas corpus WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the
filing by private respondent of the appropriate special proceedings to gain custody of
his minor child. Let copies of this decision be furnished all Members of the respondent
Court of Appeals. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
NARVASA, C.J.:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction, in a special civil action
of mandamus against a public officer, to take cognizance of the matter of damages
sought to be recovered from the defendant officer, is the chief issue raised in
the certiorari action at bar. Also put the issue is whether or not the Solicitor General
may represent the defendant public officer in the mandamus suit, in so far as the
claim for damages is concerned, in light of the Court's rulings in Urbano , et al. v.
Chavez, et al., and Co v. Regional Trial Court of Pasig, et al. 1
There is no dispute about the facts from which these issues arise.
In the early months of 1987 and pursuant to Executive Order No. 119 issued on
January 30, 1987 by President Corazon Aquino reorganization of the various
offices of the Ministry of Health commenced; existing offices were abolished, transfers
of personnel effected.
At the time of the reorganization, Dr. Alejandro S. de la Fuente was the Chief of the
Clinics of the National Children's Hospital, having been appointed to that position on
December 20, 1978. Prior thereto, he occupied the post of Medical Specialist II, a
position to which he was promoted in 1977 after serving as Medical Specialist I of the
same hospital for six (6) years (since 1971).
On February 4, 1988 Dr. de la Fuente received notice from the Department of Health
that he would be re-appointed "Medical Specialist II." Considering this is to be a
demotion by no less than two ranks from his post as Chief of Clinics, Dr. de la Fuente
filed a protest with the DOH Reorganization Board. When his protest was ignored, he
brought his case to the Civil Service Commission where it was docketed as CSC
Case No. 4. In the meantime "the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the position
of Chief of Clinics were turned over to and were allowed to be exercised by Dr. Jose
D.
Merencilla,
Jr." 2
Dr. de la Fuente's case was decided by the Civil Service Commission in a Resolution
dated August 9, 1988. In that Resolution, the Commission made the following
conclusion and disposition, to wit:
. . (The Commission) declares the demotion/transfer of appellant de
la Fuente, Jr. from Chief of Clinics to Medical Specialists II as null
and void: hence, illegal. Considering further that since the National
Children's Hospital was not abolished and the position therein
remained intact although the title or the position of Chief of Clinics
was changed to "Chief of Medical Professional Staff" with
substantially the same functions and responsibilities, the
Commission hereby orders that:
1. Appellant de la Fuente, Jr. be retained or considering as never
having relinquished his position of Chief of Clinics (now Chief of
Medical Professional Staff) without loss of seniority rights; and
2. He be paid back salaries, transportation, representation and
housing allowances and such other benefits withheld from him from
the date of his illegal demotion/transfer.
No motion for reconsideration of this Resolution was ever submitted nor appeal
therefrom essayed to the Supreme Court, within the thirty-day period prescribed
therefor by the Constitution. 3 Consequently, the resolution became final, on
September 21, 1988.
De la Fuente thereupon sent two (2) letters to Dr. Vital-Gozon, the Medical Center
Chief of National Children's Hospital, 4 demanding the implementation of the
Commission's decision. Dr. Vital-Gozon referred "de la Fuente's claims to the
Department of Health Assistant Secretary for Legal Affairs for appropriate advice
and/or action . . (She did this allegedly because, according to the Solicitor General,
she was) unaware when and how a CSC Resolution becomes final and executory,
whether such Resolution had in fact become final and executory and whether the
DOH Legal Department would officially assail the mentioned Resolution." 5 But she
did not answer Dr. de la Fuente's letters, not even to inform him of the referral thereof
to the Assistant Secretary. She chose simply to await "legal guidance from the DOH
Legal Department." On the other hand, no one in the DOH Legal Department
bothered to reply to Dr. de la Fuente, or to take steps to comply or otherwise advise
her co-party, Dr. Merencilla, Jr., moved for reconsideration of, or attempted to appeal
the decision.
It was de la Fuente who sought reconsideration of the judgment, by motion filed
through new counsel, Atty. Ceferino Gaddi. 14 He insisted that the Appellate Court had
competence to award damages in a mandamus action. He argued that while such a
claim for damages might not have been proper in a mandamus proceeding in the
Appellate Court "before the enactment of B.P. Blg. 129 because the Court of Appeals
had authority to issue such writs only 'in aid of its appellate jurisdiction,'" the situation
was changed by said BP 129 in virtue of which three levels of courts the Supreme
Court, the Regional Trial Court, and the Court of Appeals were conferred
concurrent original jurisdiction to issue said writs, and the Court of Appeals was given
power to conduct hearings and receive evidence to resolve factual issues. To require
him to separately litigate the matter of damages he continued, would lead to that
multiplicity of suits which is abhorred by the law.
While his motion for reconsideration was pending, de la Fuente sought to enforce the
judgment of the Court of Appeals of June 9, 1989 directing his reinstatement
pursuant to the Civil Service Commission's Resolution of August 9, 1988, supra. He
filed on July 4, 1989 a "Motion for Execution," alleging that the judgment of June 9,
1989 had become final and executory for failure of Gozon, et al. served with notice
thereof on June 16, 1989 to move for its reconsideration or elevate the same to the
Supreme Court. 15 His motion was granted by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution
dated July 7, 1989, 16 reading as follows:
The decision of June 9, 1989 having become final and executory,
as prayed for, let the writ of execution issue forthwith.
The corresponding writ of execution issued on July 13, 1989, 17 on the invoked
authority of Section 9, Rule 39. 18 The writ quoted the dispositive portion of the
judgment of June 9, 1989, including, as the Solicitor General's Office points out, the
second paragraph to the effect that the petitions "are not the vehicle nor is the Court
the forum for the claim of damages; (hence,) the prayer therefor is denied."
The writ of execution notwithstanding, compliance with the June 9, 1989 judgment
was not effected. Consequently, de la Fuente filed, on July 20, 1989, an "Urgent Ex
Parte Manifestation with Prayer to Cite Respondents for Contempt," complaining that
although Gozon and her co-parties had been served with the writ of execution on July
14, they had not complied therewith. By Resolution dated July 26, 1989, the Court
required Gozon and Merencilla to appear before it on August 3, 1989 to answer the
charge and show cause "why they should not be adjudged in contempt for disobeying
and/or resisting the judgment." 19
At about this time, yet another lawyer, Atty. Pedro F. Martinez entered his appearance
for Isabelita Gozon. 25 At his instance, the Court gave him an "opportunity to . . . file a
motion for reconsideration" of the Resolution of September 27, 1989. 26 That motion
he filed by registered mail on November 10, 1989. 27 His basic contentions were (a)
that the decision of June 9, 1989 could no longer be altered, having become final and
executory and having in fact been executed, and (b) that under BP 129, the Appellate
Court had no jurisdiction over the question of damages in a mandamus action.
The Office of the Solicitor General also put in an appearance in Gozon's behalf at this
juncture, saying that the case had been referred to it only on November 14, 1989. It,
too, sought reconsideration of the Resolution of September 27, 1989. It filed on
November 16, 1989 an "Omnibus Motion; I. For Reconsideration of Resolution dated
September 27, 1989; and II. To defer hearing on petitioner's claims for damages." 28
Both motions were denied by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution dated January 11,
1991. In that Resolution, the Court
1) declared that the amended decision had already become final
and could no longer be re-opened because, although "a copy of the
amendatory resolution was received by counsel who was
representing Gozon on October 3, 1989," the first motion for
reconsideration was not mailed until November 10, 1989 and the
Solicitor General's "Omnibus Motion" was not filed until November
16, 1989; and
2) prohibited the Solicitor General from representing Gozon "in
connection with . . . (de la Fuente's) claim for damages," on the
authority of this Court's ruling promulgated on March 19, 1990 in
G.R. No. 87977 (Urbano, et al. v. Chavez, et al.) and G.R. No.
88578 (Co v. Regional Trial Court of Pasig).29
Notice of this Resolution of January 11, 1991 was served on the Solicitor General's
Office on January 18, 1991.30 Again the Solicitor General sought reconsideration, by
motion dated January 25, 1991 and filed on January 30, 1991. 31Again it was
rebuffed. In a Resolution rendered on August 7, 1991, 32 served on the Solicitor
General's Office on August 20, 1991, 33 the Court of Appeals denied the motion. It
ruled that the "question of the authority of the Solicitor General to appear as counsel
for respondent Gozon . . . (had already) been extensively discussed," and that its
"jurisdiction . . . to hear and determine issues on damages proceeds from Sec. 9,
Batas Pambansa 129 as amended."
5) the extension granted by said Court of Appeals within which to file answer, notice
thereof having been sent directly to her and her co-respondents since the attorney
who sought the extension in their behalf (Atty. Fabia) did not set out his address in his
motion for extension;
6) the "supplemental/amended petition" subsequently presented by de la Fuente,
copy of which was sent to Atty. Fabia, c/o Dr. Vital-Gozon; and
7) the Decision and Amendatory Decision sent to her counsel on October 3, 1989.
To all these, her reaction, and that of the officials of the Department of Health
concerned, was a regrettably cavalier one, to say the least. Neither she nor the
Health officials concerned accorded said acts and events any importance. She never
bothered to find out what was being done to contest or negate de la Fuente's petitions
and actions, notwithstanding that as time went by, de la Fuente's efforts were being
met with success.
Nothing in the record even remotely suggests that Vital-Gozon merits relief from the
final and executory Resolution of the Civil Service Commission. This Court will not
disturb that Resolution. It is satisfied that no procedural or substantive errors taint that
Resolution, or its becoming final and executory.
II
Now, final and executory judgments are enforced by writ of execution and not by
another, separate action, whether of mandamus or otherwise. Hence, execution of the
Civil Service Commission's decision of August 9, 1988 should have been ordered and
effected by the Commission itself, when de la Fuente filed a motion therefor. It
declined to do so, however, on the alleged ground, as de la Fuente claims he was
told, that it "had no coercive powers unlike a court to enforce its final
decisions/resolutions." 35 That proposition, communicated to de la Fuente, of the
Commission's supposed lack of coercive power to enforce its final judgments, is
incorrect. It is inconsistent with previous acts of the Commission of actually directing
execution of its decisions and resolutions, which this Court has sanctioned in several
cases; 36 and it is not in truth a correct assessment of its powers under the
Constitution and the relevant laws.
In an En Banc Decision promulgated on October 15, 1991 in G.R. No. 96938 entitled
"Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) versus Civil Service Commission, et
al.," 37 this Court declared that in light of the pertinent provisions of the Constitution
and relevant statutes
section pertinently declares that the "Intermediate Appellate Court (now the Court of
Appeals) shall exercise . .," among others:
. . . Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus,
prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo warranto, and
auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction . . . 38
The Solicitor General's Office evidently searched said Section 9 for an explicit and
specific statement regarding "actions for moral and exemplary damages," and finding
none, concluded that the Court of Appeals had not been granted competence to
assume cognizance of claims for such damages. The conclusion is incorrect. Section
19, governing the exclusive original jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts in civil cases,
contains no reference whatever to claims "for moral and exemplary damages," and
indeed does not use the word "damages" at all; yet it is indisputable that said courts
have power to try and decide claims for moral, exemplary and other classes of
damages accompanying any of the types or kinds of cases falling within their
specified jurisdiction. The Solicitor General's theory that the rule in question is a mere
procedural one allowing joinder of an action of mandamus and another for damages,
is untenable, for it implies that a claim for damages arising from the omission or
failure to do an act subject of a mandamus suit may be litigated separately from the
latter, the matter of damages not being inextricably linked to the cause of action
for mandamus, which is certainly not the case.
Now, at the time of the enactment of B.P. 129, the issuance of the extraordinary writs
above mentioned was controlled by the Rules of Court of 1964, as they continue to
date to be so controlled. More particularly, the principal writs of mandamus,
prohibition and certiorari were (and continue to be) governed by Rule 65; the writ
ofhabeas corpus, by Rule 102; and the writ of quo warranto, by Rule 66. The socalled auxiliary writs were (and continue to be) also governed by the same code
e.g., preliminary attachment, by Rule 57; preliminary injunction, by Rule 58,
receivership, by Rule 59; writ of seizure or delivery in a replevin suit, by Rule 60.
At that time, Section 3 of Rule 65 authorized (as it continues to authorize to date)
rendition of judgment in amandamus action "commanding the defendant, immediately
or at some other specified time, to do the act required to be done to protect the rights
of the petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the
wrongful acts of the defendant." 39 The provision makes plain that the damages are an
incident, or the result of, the defendant's wrongful act in failing and refusing to do the
act required to be done. It is noteworthy that the Rules of 1940 had an identical
counterpart provision. 40
The next issue is whether or not the Solicitor General may properly represent a public
official like Dr. Vital-Gozon, who is sued for damages for allegedly refusing to comply
with a lawful and executory judgment of competent authority. The doctrine laid down
in the Urbano and Co cases already adverted to, 45 is quite clear:
. . . (T)he Office of the Solicitor General is not authorized to
represent a public official at any stage of a criminal case. . . .
Worthy of note, too, is that Rule 66 of the Rules of Court similarly authorizes the
recovery of damages in a quo warranto action against a corporate officer an action
within the concurrent jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals as follows: 42
Sec. 14. Liability of officer neglecting to deliver property of
corporation to receiver. An officer of such corporation who
refuses or neglects, upon demand, to deliver over to the receiver all
money, property, books, deeds, notes, bills, obligations, and papers
of every description within his power or control, belonging to the
corporation, or in any wise necessary for the settlement of its
affairs, or the discharge of its debts and liabilities, may be punished
for contempt as having disobeyed a lawful order of the court, and
shall be liable to the receiver for the value of all money or other
things so refused or neglected to be surrendered, together with all
damages that may have been sustained by the stockholders and
creditors of the corporation, or any of them, in consequence of
such neglect or refusal.
An award of damages was and is also allowed in connection with the auxiliary writ of
preliminary attachment, preliminary injunction or receivership which the Court of
Appeals has the power to issue in common with the Supreme Court and the Regional
Trial Courts, 43 payable by the sureties of the bond given in support of the writ, upon
seasonable application and summary hearing. 44
Since it cannot but be assumed that in formulating, and incorporating in BP 129, the
provision governing the jurisdiction of the Intermediate Appellate Court, now Court of
Appeals, the Batasang Pambansa was fully cognizant of the relevant provisions of the
Rules of Court just cited, as well as the rule against multiplicity of actions, it follows
that in conferring on the Court of Appeals original jurisdiction over the special civil
action ofmandamus, among others, as well as over the issuance of auxiliary writs or
processes, the Batasang Pambansaclearly intended that said Court should exercise
all the powers then possessed by it under the Rules of Court in relation to said action
of mandamus and auxiliary writs, including the adjudication of damages to the
petitioner in the action in appropriate cases.
IV
is to the effect that an acceptance of full satisfaction of the judgment annihilates the
right to further prosecute the appeal; . . . that a party who has recovered judgment
on a claim which cannot be split up and made the basis of several causes of action,
and afterwards coerced full satisfaction by writ of execution or authority of the court,
cannot maintain an appeal from the judgment against the objections of the judgment
debtor;" and that even partial execution by compulsory legal process at the instance
of a party in whose favor a judgment appealed from was rendered, places said party
in estoppel to ask that the judgment be amended, either "by appeal or answer to his
adversary's appeal, or otherwise." 50
A converso, where the judgment is divisible, estoppel should not operate against the
judgment creditor who causes implementation of a part of the decision by writ of
execution. This is the clear import of Verches and the precedents therein invoked. It is
an aspect of the principle above mentioned that is fully consistent not only with the
dissenting opinion that "(a)cceptance of payment of . . . only the uncontroverted part
of the claim . . . should not preclude the plaintiff from prosecuting his appeal, to
determine whether he should not have been allowed more," 51 but also with logic and
common sense.
In this case, the amended judgment of the Court of Appeals is clearly divisible,
satisfaction of which may be "split up." One part has reference to the enforcement of
the final and executory judgment of the Civil Service Commission, that de la Fuente
should be reinstated to the position of Chief of Clinics (now Chief of Medical
Professional Staff) without loss of seniority rights and that he be paid his back
salaries and all monetary benefits due him from the date of his illegal demotion. This
part is no longer issuable, and has not in truth been controverted by Gozon herself.
The other part has reference to the damages which de la Fuente contends he
suffered as a result of the unjustified refusal of Gozon and her co-parties to comply
with the final and executory judgment of the Civil Service Commission, and which the
Appellate Tribunal has allowed him to prove. Obviously, the second part cannot
possibly affect the first. Whether de la Fuente succeeds or fails in his bid to recover
damages against Gozon, et al. because of their refusal to obey the judgment of the
Civil Service Commission, is a contingency that cannot affect the unalterable
enforceability of that judgment. Similarly, the enforcement of the Commission's
judgment (already accomplished by writ of execution of the Court of Appeals issued at
de la Fuente's instance) cannot influence in any manner the question whether or not
there was culpable refusal on the part of Gozon, et al. to comply with said judgment
when first required so to do, and whether de la Fuente did in fact suffer compensable
injury thereby.
It bears stressing that the juridical situation in which de la Fuente finds himself is not
of his making. It is a consequence of circumstances not attributable to any fault on his
ST.
MARTIN
FUNERAL
vs.
NATIONAL
LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION
ARICAYOS, respondents.
REGALADO, J.:
HOME, petitioner,
and
BIENVENIDO
Before proceeding further into the merits of the case at bar, the Court feels that it is
now exigent and opportune to reexamine the functional validity and systemic
practicability of the mode of judicial review it has long adopted and still follows with
respect to decisions of the NLRC. The increasing number of labor disputes that find
their way to this Court and the legislative changes introduced over the years into the
provisions of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 442 (The Labor Code of the Philippines
and Batas Pambansa Blg. (B.P. No.) 129 (The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980)
now stridently call for and warrant a reassessment of that procedural aspect.
We prefatorily delve into the legal history of the NLRC. It was first established in the
Department of Labor by P.D. No. 21 on October 14, 1972, and its decisions were
expressly declared to be appealable to the Secretary of Labor and, ultimately, to the
President of the Philippines.
On May 1, 1974, P.D. No. 442 enacted the Labor Code of the Philippines, the same to
take effect six months after its promulgation. 8 Created and regulated therein is the
present NLRC which was attached to the Department of Labor and Employment for
program and policy coordination only. 9 Initially, Article 302 (now, Article 223) thereof
also granted an aggrieved party the remedy of appeal from the decision of the NLRC
to the Secretary of Labor, but P.D. No. 1391 subsequently amended said provision
and abolished such appeals. No appellate review has since then been provided for.
Thus, to repeat, under the present state of the law, there is no provision for appeals
from the decision of the NLRC. 10 The present Section 223, as last amended by
Section 12 of R.A. No. 6715, instead merely provides that the Commission shall
decide all cases within twenty days from receipt of the answer of the appellee, and
that such decision shall be final and executory after ten calendar days from receipt
thereof by the parties.
When the issue was raised in an early case on the argument that this Court has no
jurisdiction to review the decisions of the NLRC, and formerly of the Secretary of
Labor, since there is no legal provision for appellate review thereof, the Court
nevertheless rejected that thesis. It held that there is an underlying power of the
courts to scrutinize the acts of such agencies on questions of law and jurisdiction
even though no right of review is given by statute; that the purpose of judicial review
is to keep the administrative agency within its jurisdiction and protect the substantial
rights of the parties; and that it is that part of the checks and balances which restricts
the separation of powers and forestalls arbitrary and unjust adjudications. 11
Pursuant to such ruling, and as sanctioned by subsequent decisions of this Court, the
remedy of the aggrieved party is to timely file a motion for reconsideration as a
precondition for any further or subsequent remedy, 12 and then seasonably avail of the
Subsequently, and as it presently reads, this provision was amended by R.A. No.
7902 effective March 18, 1995, to wit:
Sec. 9. Jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals shall exercise:
Turning now to the matter of judicial review of NLRC decisions, B.P. No. 129 originally
provided as follows:
(1)
Original
jurisdiction to
issue
writs
of mandamus,
prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo warranto, and
auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction;
(1)
Original
jurisdiction to
issue
writs
of mandamus,
prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo warranto, and
auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction;
The Court of Appeals shall have the power to try cases and conduct
hearings, receive evidence and perform any and all acts necessary
to resolve factual issues raised in cases falling within its original
and appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant and conduct
new trials or further proceedings. Trials or hearings in the Court of
Appeals must be continuous and must be completed within, three
(3) months, unless extended by the Chief Justice.
It will readily be observed that, aside from the change in the name of the lower
appellate court, 16 the following amendments of the original provisions of Section 9 of
B.P. No. 129 were effected by R.A. No. 7902, viz.:
1. The last paragraph which excluded its application to the Labor Code of the
Philippines and the Central Board of Assessment Appeals was deleted and replaced
by a new paragraph granting the Court of Appeals limited powers to conduct trials and
hearings in cases within its jurisdiction.
awards wherein are within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or of any
other court for that matter.
A review of the legislative records on the antecedents of R.A. No. 7902 persuades us
that there may have been an oversight in the course of the deliberations on the said
Act or an imprecision in the terminology used therein. In fine, Congress did intend to
provide for judicial review of the adjudications of the NLRC in labor cases by the
Supreme Court, but there was an inaccuracy in the term used for the intended mode
of review. This conclusion which we have reluctantly but prudently arrived at has been
drawn from the considerations extant in the records of Congress, more particularly on
Senate Bill No. 1495 and the Reference Committee Report on S. No. 1495/H. No.
10452. 18
In sponsoring Senate Bill No. 1495, Senator Raul S. Roco delivered his sponsorship
speech 19 from which we reproduce the following excerpts:
The Judiciary Reorganization Act, Mr. President, Batas Pambansa
Blg. 129, reorganized the Court of Appeals and at the same time
expanded its jurisdiction and powers. Among others, its appellate
jurisdiction was expanded to cover not only final judgment of
Regional Trial Courts, but also all final judgment(s), decisions,
resolutions, orders or awards of quasi-judicial agencies,
instrumentalities, boards and commissions, except those falling
within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance
with the Constitution, the provisions of BP Blg. 129 and of
subparagraph 1 of the third paragraph and subparagraph 4 of
Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.
Mr. President, the purpose of the law is to ease the workload of the
Supreme Court by the transfer of some of its burden of review of
factual issues to the Court of Appeals. However, whatever benefits
that can be derived from the expansion of the appellate jurisdiction
of the Court of Appeals was cut short by the last paragraph of
Section 9 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 which excludes from its
coverage the "decisions and interlocutory orders issued under the
Labor Code of the Philippines and by the Central Board of
Assessment Appeals.
Among the highest number of cases that are brought up to the
Supreme Court are labor cases. Hence, Senate Bill No. 1495
seeks to eliminate the exceptions enumerated in Section 9 and,
additionally, extends the coverage of appellate review of the Court
observance of the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts as the appropriate forum for the
relief desired.
Apropos to this directive that resort to the higher courts should be made in
accordance with their hierarchical order, this pronouncement in Santiago vs.
Vasquez, et al. 25 should be taken into account:
One final observation. We discern in the proceedings in this case a
propensity on the part of petitioner, and, for that matter, the same
may be said of a number of litigants who initiate recourses before
us, to disregard the hierarchy of courts in our judicial system by
seeking relief directly from this Court despite the fact that the same
is available in the lower courts in the exercise of their original or
concurrent jurisdiction, or is even mandated by law to be sought
therein. This practice must be stopped, not only because of the
imposition upon the precious time of this Court but also because of
the inevitable and resultant delay, intended or otherwise, in the
adjudication of the case which often has to be remanded or referred
to the lower court as the proper forum under the rules of procedure,
or as better equipped to resolve the issues since this Court is not a
trier of facts. We, therefore, reiterate the judicial policy that this
Court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress desired
cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts or where exceptional
and compelling circumstances justify availment of a remedy within
and calling for the exercise of our primary jurisdiction.
Incidentally, it was noted by the sponsor therein that some quarters were of the
opinion that recourse from the NLRC to the Court of Appeals as an initial step in the
process of judicial review would be circuitous and would prolong the proceedings. On
the contrary, as he commendably and realistically emphasized, that procedure would
be advantageous to the aggrieved party on this reasoning:
On the other hand, Mr. President, to allow these cases to be
appealed to the Court of Appeals would give litigants the advantage
to have all the evidence on record be reexamined and reweighed
after which the findings of facts and conclusions of said bodies are
correspondingly affirmed, modified or reversed.
Under such guarantee, the Supreme Court can then apply strictly
the axiom that factual findings of the Court of Appeals are final and
may not be reversed on appeal to the Supreme Court. A perusal of
the records will reveal appeals which are factual in nature and may,
therefore, be dismissed outright by minute resolutions. 24
While we do not wish to intrude into the Congressional sphere on the matter of the
wisdom of a law, on this score we add the further observations that there is a growing
number of labor cases being elevated to this Court which, not being a trier of fact, has
at times been constrained to remand the case to the NLRC for resolution of unclear or
ambiguous factual findings; that the Court of Appeals is procedurally equipped for that
purpose, aside from the increased number of its component divisions; and that there
is undeniably an imperative need for expeditious action on labor cases as a major
aspect of constitutional protection to labor.
Therefore, all references in the amended Section 9 of B.P. No. 129 to supposed
appeals from the NLRC to the Supreme Court are interpreted and hereby declared to
mean and refer to petitions for certiorari under Rule 65. Consequently, all such
petitions should hence forth be initially filed in the Court of Appeals in strict
WHEREFORE, under the foregoing premises, the instant petition for certiorari is
hereby REMANDED, and all pertinent records thereof ordered to be FORWARDED,
to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition consistent with the
views and ruling herein set forth, without pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
NATIONAL
WATER
RESOURCES
vs.
A. L. ANG NETWORK, INC., Respondent.
DECISION
Art. 89 of P.D. 1067 having been long repealed by BP 129, as amended, which has
effectively and explicitly removed the Regional Trial Courts appellate jurisdiction over
the decisions, resolutions, order[s] or awards of quasi-judicial agencies such as
[petitioner] NWRB, and vested with the Court of Appeals, very clearly now, this Court
has no jurisdiction over this instant petition.
BOARD
(NWRB), Petitioner,
Its motion for reconsideration having been denied, respondent filed a petition for
certiorari at the Court of Appeals, which, by Decision of January 25, 2008,5 annulled
and set aside the RTC April 15, 2005, holding that it is the RTC which has jurisdiction
over appeals from petitioners decisions. Thus the appellate court discoursed.
Petitioners motion for reconsideration having been denied by the appellate court by
Resolution of February 9, 2009,6 petitioner filed the present petition for review,
contending that:
THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT HAS NO CERTIORARI JURISDICTION OVER THE
[PETITIONER] SINCE SECTION 89, PD NO. 1067, REGARDING APPEALS, HAS
BEEN SUPERSEDED AND REPEALED BY [BATAS PAMBANSA BILANG] 129 AND
THE RULES OF COURT. FURTHERMORE, PD 1067 ITSELF DOES NOT
CONTEMPLATE THAT THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT SHOULD HAVE
CERTIORARI JURISDICTION OVER THE [PETITIONER].7 (underscoring supplied)
Petitioner maintains that the RTC does not have jurisdiction over a petition for
certiorari and prohibition to annul or modify its acts or omissions as a quasi-judicial
agency. Citing Section 4 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, petitioner contends that
there is no law or rule which requires the filing of a petition for certiorari over its acts
or omissions in any other court or tribunal other than the Court of Appeals.8
Petitioner goes on to fault the appellate court in holding that Batas Pambansa Bilang
129 (BP 129) or the Judiciary Reorganization Act did not expressly repeal Article 89 of
Presidential Decree No. 1067 (PD 1067) otherwise known as the Water Code of the
Philippines.9
Respondent, on the other hand, maintains the correctness of the assailed decision of
the appellate court.
The petition is impressed with merit.
Section 9 (1) of BP 129 granted the Court of Appeals (then known as the Intermediate
Appellate Court) original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition,
certiorari, habeas corpus and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes, whether
or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.10
Since the appellate court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over quasi-judicial
agencies under Rule 4311 of the Rules of Court, petitions for writs of certiorari,
prohibition or mandamus against the acts and omissions of quasi-judicial agencies,
like petitioner, should be filed with it. This is what Rule 65 of the Rules imposes for
procedural uniformity. The only exception to this instruction is when the law or the
Rules itself directs otherwise, as cited in Section 4, Rule 65. 12 The appellate courts
construction that Article 89 of PD 1067, which reads:
KAPUNAN, J.:
Before us is a Petition for Certiorari to set aside the Order dated January 12, 1995
issued by respondent Judge Augustine A. Vestil of the Regional Trial Court of
Mandaue City, Branch 56, dismissing the complaint filed by petitioners on ground of
lack of jurisdiction, as well as his Order dated February 13, 1995 denying petitioners'
Motion for Reconsideration of the order of dismissal.
The facts of the case are as follows:
Hence, this petition wherein the sole issue raised is whether or not the Regional Trial
Court has jurisdiction to entertain Civil Case No. MAN-2275.
We find merit in the petition.
Petitioners maintain the view that the complaint filed before the Regional Trial Court is
for the annulment of a document denominated as "DECLARATION OF HEIRS AND
DEED OF CONFIRMATION OF PREVIOUS ORAL PARTITION," which is clearly one
incapable of pecuniary estimation, thus, cognizable by the Regional Trial Court.
Private respondents, on the other hand, insists that the action is one for re-partition
and since the assessed value of the property as stated in the complaint is P5,000.00,
then, the case falls within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Liloan,
Compostela, Cebu.
For better appreciation of the facts, the pertinent portions of the complaint are
reproduced hereunder:
On November 24, 1994, private respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss 2 the complaint
on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the nature of the case as the total assessed
value of the subject land is P5,000.00 which under section 33 (3) 3 of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691, 4 falls within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Municipal Circuit Trial Curt of Liloan, Compostela. 5
Petitioners filed an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss 6 saying that the Regional
Trial Court has jurisdiction over the case since the action is one which is incapable of
pecuniary estimation within the contemplation of Section 19(1) of B.P. 129, as
amended. 7
On January 12, 1995, the respondent judge issued an Order granting the Motion to
Dismiss. 8 A Motion for Reconsideration of said order was filed by petitioners on
January 30, 1995 alleging that the same is contrary to law because their action is not
one for recovery of title to or possession of the land but an action to annul a
document or declare it null and void, 9 hence, one incapable of pecuniary estimation
falling within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court. Private respondents did not
oppose the motion for reconsideration.
On February 13, 1995, the respondent judge issued another Order denying the
motion for reconsideration. 10
3. That the plaintiffs and the defendants are the legal heirs of
spouses Casimero Tautho and Cesaria N. Tautho who died long
time ago;
PATRICIO
A.
vs.
PATRICIO S. PAYOYO, Respondent.
VILLENA, Petitioner,
On October 26, 1998, Payoyo filed a complaint for recovery of a sum of money and
damages against Villena. Villena moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a
cause of action. He argued that there was no ground to cancel the contract; thus,
there was no basis for refund. The trial court denied his motion. Villena thereafter filed
an answer with compulsory counterclaim citing as an affirmative defense Payoyos
failure to state a cause of action.
On June 1, 1999, immediately after the trial court issued a pre-trial order, Villena filed
a second motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject
matter but it was denied. Thereafter, trial ensued.
DECISION
QUISUMBING, J.:
1
This petition for review on certiorari assails the Decision dated November 21, 2003 of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 70513 and its Resolution 2 dated March 18,
2004, denying petitioners motion for reconsideration. The appellate court had
affirmed with modification the Decision3 dated April 26, 2000 of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 78.
The facts are undisputed.
The trial court decided in favor of Payoyo, reasoning that the power to rescind is
implied in reciprocal obligations. Considering that Villena repeatedly failed to comply
with his obligation, Payoyo had the right to rescind the contract and demand a refund.
The trial court ordered petitioner to pay respondent P184,821.50 as actual damages
plus 12% interest per annum from the date of filing of the complaint and P20,000 as
moral damages plus legal interest from judicial demand until fully paid.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision with the following modifications:
1) [Petitioner Villena is] hereby ordered to pay [respondent Payoyo] actual
damages in the amount of P155,183.00 with 12% interest per annum from
the date of the filing of the complaint;
On October 28, 1997, respondent Patricio Payoyo and Novaline, Inc., through its
president, petitioner Patricio Villena, entered into a contract for the delivery and
installation of kitchen cabinets in Payoyos residence. The cabinets were to be
delivered within ninety days from downpayment of 50% of the purchase price. On
October 29, 1997, Payoyo paid Villena P155,183 as downpayment.
On December 9, 1997, Payoyo entered into another contract with Villena for the
delivery of home appliances. On the same day, Payoyo paid 50% of the purchase
price equal to P29,638.50 as downpayment.
However, Villena failed to install the kitchen cabinets and deliver the appliances.
Payoyo made several demands upon Villena but the latter failed to comply.
In a letter dated March 12, 1998, Payoyo demanded the cancellation of the contracts
and the refund in full of the downpayments amounting to P184,821.50. Villena
promised to install the kitchen cabinets on or before May 10, 1998 and to deliver the
appliances. Despite repeated demands, Villena again failed to do so.
Payoyo sent Villena two demand letters on June 24, 1998 and on July 28, 1998
asking the latter to either deliver all items or return the downpayments.
Simply, the issue in this case is whether the trial court had jurisdiction over the
complaint.
Verily, what determines the nature of the action and which court has jurisdiction over it
are the allegations of the complaint and the character of the relief sought.11
Petitioner maintains that the RTC should have dismissed the complaint for lack of
jurisdiction. He posits that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the complaint since it is
mainly for recovery of a sum of money in the amount ofP184,821.50 which is below
the jurisdictional amount set for RTCs.6 Moreover, petitioner contends that the issue
of jurisdiction may be raised at any time, even on appeal, since jurisdiction is
conferred only by law and cannot be acquired through or waived by any act or
omission of the parties.7
In our considered view, the complaint, albeit entitled as one for collection of a sum of
money with damages, is one incapable of pecuniary estimation; thus, one within the
RTCs jurisdiction. The allegations therein show that it is actually for breach of
contract, thus,
II.
Respondent, on the other hand, contends that the RTC has jurisdiction over the
complaint as the allegations therein show that it is actually a case for rescission of the
contracts. The recovery of a sum of money is merely a necessary consequence of the
cancellation of the contracts.8
The pertinent portion of Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, as amended by
Republic Act No. 7691,9provides:
SEC. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases.Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive
original jurisdiction:
(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary
estimation;
xxxx
(8) In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever
kind, attorneys fees, litigation expenses, and costs or the value of the property in
controversy exceeds One Hundred Thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in such other
cases in Metro Manila, where the demand, exclusive of the abovementioned items
exceeds Two Hundred Thousand pesos (P200,000.00).
xxxx
7. Under their Contracts, prestation and/or delivery of the items will be performed and
delivered within NINETY (90) DAYS from the receipt of downpayment. Plaintiff
complied with its prestation but defendants defaulted with their obligation;
xxxx
10. On 12 March 1998, plaintiff sent letter to defendants requesting the latter for the
cancellation of the purchase contracts and refund in full the (50%) downpayment paid
in the total amount of (P 184, 821.50) within five (5) days upon receipt of the letter
xxxx
12. On 24 March 1998, plaintiff and defendant Patricio A. Villena, personally talked
[to] each other regarding the full refund of the (50%) downpayment in the amount of P
184, 821.50. Defendant informed the plaintiff that it was their fault because the order
from their Australian supplier was made only on 15 December 1997. Defendant
promised plaintiff [delivery of] the three (3) Kitchen Cabinets on or before 10 [M]ay
1998, and the three (3) home appliances were considered fully paid applying the
(50%) downpayment of (P 29,638.50) for home appliances only. But defendant did
not fulfill his promise;
DAVID
LU, Petitioner,
vs.
PATERNO LU YM, SR., PATERNO LU YM, JR., VICTOR LU YM, JOHN LU YM,
KELLY
LU
YM,
and
LUDO
&
LUYM
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, Respondents.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
G.R. No. 157381
which Decision was, on motion for reconsideration, the Court voting 4-1,3 reversed by
Resolution of August 4, 2009, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Motion for Reconsideration filed by John
Lu Ym and Ludo & LuYm Development Corporation is GRANTED. The Decision of
this Court dated August 26, 2008 is RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE. The
Complaint in SRC Case No. 021-CEB, now on appeal with the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CV No. 81163, is DISMISSED.
All interlocutory matters challenged in these consolidated petitions are DENIED for
being moot and academic.
PATERNO LU YM, SR., PATERNO LU YM, JR., VICTOR LU YM, JOHN LU YM,
KELLY LU YM, and LUDO & LUYM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioners,
vs.
DAVID LU, Respondent.
SO ORDERED.4
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
Following his receipt on October 19, 2009 of the minute Resolution, David Lu
personally filed on October 30, 2009 a Second Motion for Reconsideration and
Motion to Refer Resolution to the Court En Banc. On even date, he filed through
registered mail an "Amended Second Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Refer
Resolution to the Court En Banc." And on November 3, 2009, he filed a "Motion for
Leave to File [a] Motion for Clarification[, and the] Second Motion for Reconsideration
and Motion to Refer Resolution to the Court En Banc." He later also filed a
David Lus Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Refer Resolution to the
Court En Banc was denied by minute Resolution of September 23, 2009.
availed of an improper mode (via an Urgent Motion filed with this Court) to assail the
admission of the Amended Complaint.
John Lu Ym and Ludo & Luym Development Corporation (LLDC), meanwhile, filed
with leave a Motion5 for the Issuance of an Entry of Judgment of February 2, 2010,
which merited an Opposition from David Lu.
In G.R. No. 157381 wherein Lu Ym father and sons challenged the appellate courts
resolution restraining the trial court from proceeding with their motion to lift the
receivership order which was filed during the pendency of G.R. No. 153690, the
Court, by Decision of August 26, 2008 resolved that the issue was mooted by the
amendment of the complaint and by the trial courts decision on the merits. The
motion having been filed ancillary to the main action, which main action was already
decided on the merits by the trial court, the Court held that there was nothing more to
enjoin.
In compliance with the Courts Resolution of January 11, 2010, Kelly Lu Ym, Victor Lu
Ym and Paterno Lu Ym, Jr. filed a Comment/Opposition of March 20, 2010, while
John Lu Ym and LLDC filed a Consolidated Comment of March 25, 2010, a
Supplement thereto of April 20, 2010, and a Manifestation of May 24, 2010.
The present cases were later referred to the Court en banc by Resolution of October
20, 2010.
Brief Statement of the Antecedents
The three consolidated cases stemmed from the complaint for "Declaration of Nullity
of Share Issue, Receivership and Dissolution" filed on August 14, 2000 before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City by David Lu, et al.against Paterno Lu Ym, Sr.
and sons (Lu Ym father and sons) and LLDC.
By Decision of March 1, 2004, Branch 12 of the RTC ruled in favor of David et al. by
annulling the issuance of the shares of stock subscribed and paid by Lu Ym father
and sons at less than par value, and ordering the dissolution and asset liquidation of
LLDC. The appeal of the trial courts Decision remains pending with the appellate
court inCA-G.R. CV No. 81163.
Several incidents arising from the complaint reached the Court through the present
three petitions.
In G.R. No. 153690 wherein David, et al. assailed the appellate courts resolutions
dismissing their complaint for its incomplete signatory in the certificate of non-forum
shopping and consequently annulling the placing of the subject corporation under
receivership pendente lite, the Court, by Decision of August 26, 2008, found the issue
to have been mooted by the admission by the trial court of David et al.s Amended
Complaint, filed by them pursuant to the trial courts order to conform to the
requirements of the Interim Rules of Procedure Governing Intra-Corporate
Controversies.
G.R. No. 170889 involved the denial by the appellate court of Lu Ym father and sons
application in CA-G.R. CV No. 81163 for a writ of preliminary injunction. By August
26, 2008 Decision, the Court dismissed the petition after finding no merit on their
argument which they raised for the first time in their motion for reconsideration
before the appellate court of lack of jurisdiction for non-payment of the correct RTC
docket fees.
As reflected early on, the Court, in a turnaround, by Resolution of August 4, 2009,
reconsidered its position on the matter of docket fees. It ruled that the trial court did
not acquire jurisdiction over the case for David Lu, et al.s failure to pay the correct
docket fees, hence, all interlocutory matters and incidents subject of the present
petitions must consequently be denied.
Taking Cognizance of the Present Incidents
The Internal Rules of the Supreme Court (IRSC) states that the Court en banc shall
act on the following matters and cases:
(a) cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international
or executive agreement, law, executive order, presidential decree,
proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question;
(b) criminal cases in which the appealed decision imposes the death penalty
or reclusion perpetua;
(c) cases raising novel questions of law;
(d) cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls;
Since an amended pleading supersedes the pleading that it amends, the original
complaint of David, et al. was deemed withdrawn from the records.
The Court noted in G.R. No. 153690 that both parties admitted the mootness of the
issue and that the trial court had already rendered a decision on the merits of the
case. It added that the Amended Complaint stands since Lu Ym father and sons
(e) cases involving decisions, resolutions, and orders of the Civil Service
Commission, the Commission on Elections, and the Commission on Audit;
In Firestone Ceramics v. Court of Appeals, 9 the Court treated the consolidated cases
as En Banc cases and set the therein petitioners motion for oral argument, after
finding that the cases were of sufficient importance to merit the Court En Bancs
attention. It ruled that the Courts action is a legitimate and valid exercise of its
residual power.10
In Limketkai Sons Milling, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, the Court conceded that it is not
infallible. Should any error of judgment be perceived, it does not blindly adhere to
such error, and the parties adversely affected thereby are not precluded from seeking
relief therefrom, by way of a motion for reconsideration. In this jurisdiction,
rectification of an error, more than anything else, is of paramount importance.
xxxx
It bears stressing that where, as in the present case, the Court En Banc entertains a
case for its resolution and disposition, it does so without implying that the Division of
origin is incapable of rendering objective and fair justice. The action of the Court
simply means that the nature of the cases calls for en banc attention and
consideration. Neither can it be concluded that the Court has taken undue advantage
of sheer voting strength. It was merely guided by the well-studied finding and
sustainable opinion of the majority of its actual membership that, indeed, subject
cases are of sufficient importance meriting the action and decision of the whole Court.
It is, of course, beyond cavil that all the members of this highest Court of the land are
always embued with the noblest of intentions in interpreting and applying the
germane provisions of law, jurisprudence, rules and Resolutions of the Court to the
end that public interest be duly safeguarded and rule of law be observed.11
It is argued that the assailed Resolutions in the present cases have already become
final,12 since a second motion for reconsideration is prohibited except for
extraordinarily persuasive reasons and only upon express leave first obtained; 13 and
that once a judgment attains finality, it thereby becomes immutable and unalterable,
however unjust the result of error may appear.
The contention, however, misses an important point. The doctrine of immutability of
decisions applies only to final and executory decisions. Since the present cases may
involve a modification or reversal of a Court-ordained doctrine or principle, the
judgment rendered by the Special Third Division may be considered unconstitutional,
hence, it can never become final. It finds mooring in the deliberations of the framers
of the Constitution:
On proposed Section 3(4), Commissioner Natividad asked what the effect would be of
a decision that violates the proviso that "no doctrine or principle of law laid down by
the court in a decision rendered en banc or in division may be modified or reversed
except by the court en banc." The answer given was that such a decision would be
invalid. Following up, Father Bernas asked whether the decision, if not challenged,
could become final and binding at least on the parties. Romulo answered that, since
In the instant case, however, we cannot grant the dismissal prayed for because of the
following reasons: First, the case instituted before the RTC is one incapable of
pecuniary estimation. Hence, the correct docket fees were paid. Second, John and
LLDC are estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the trial court because of
their active participation in the proceedings below, and because the issue of payment
of insufficient docket fees had been belatedly raised before the Court of Appeals, i.e.,
only in their motion for reconsideration. Lastly, assuming that the docket fees paid
were truly inadequate, the mistake was committed by the Clerk of Court who
assessed the same and not imputable to David; and as to the deficiency, if any,
the same may instead be considered a lien on the judgment that may thereafter
be rendered.20 (italics in the original; emphasis and underscoring supplied)
The Value of the Subject Matter Cannot be Estimated
On the claim that the complaint had for its objective the nullification of the issuance of
600,000 shares of stock of LLDC, the real value of which based on underlying real
estate values, as alleged in the complaint, stands atP1,087,055,105, the Courts
assailed August 4, 2009 Resolution found:
Upon deeper reflection, we find that the movants [Lu Ym father & sons] claim has
merit. The 600,000 shares of stock were, indeed, properties in litigation. They were
the subject matter of the complaint, and the relief prayed for entailed the nullification
of the transfer thereof and their return to LLDC. David, et al., are minority
shareholders of the corporation who claim to have been prejudiced by the sale of the
shares of stock to the Lu Ym father and sons. Thus, to the extent of the damage or
injury they allegedly have suffered from this sale of the shares of stock, the action
they filed can be characterized as one capable of pecuniary estimation. The shares of
stock have a definite value, which was declared by plaintiffs [David Lu, et al.]
themselves in their complaint. Accordingly, the docket fees should have been
computed based on this amount. This is clear from the following version of Rule 141,
Section 7, which was in effect at the time the complaint was filed[.] 21 (emphasis and
underscoring supplied)
The said Resolution added that the value of the 600,000 shares of stock, which are
the properties in litigation, should be the basis for the computation of the filing fees. It
bears noting, however, that David, et al. are not claiming to own these shares. They
do not claim to be the owners thereof entitled to be the transferees of the shares of
stock. The mention of the real value of the shares of stock, over which David, et
al. do not, it bears emphasis, interpose a claim of right to recovery, is merely
narrative or descriptive in order to emphasize the inequitable price at which the
transfer was effected.
The assailed August 4, 2009 Resolution also stated that "to the extent of the damage
or injury [David, et al.] allegedly have suffered from this sale," the action "can be
characterized as one capable of pecuniary estimation." The Resolution does not,
however, explore the value of the extent of the damage or injury. Could it be the pro
Inc. and Bautista v. Lim. In Lapitan this Court, in an opinion by Justice J.B.L. Reyes,
held:
The complaint filed by David, et al. is one for declaration of nullity of share
issuance. The main relief prayed for both in the original complaint and the amended
complaint is the same, that is, to declare null and void the issuance of 600,000
unsubscribed and unissued shares to Lu Ym father and sons, et al. for a price of 1/18
of their real value, for being inequitable, having been done in breach of directors
fiduciarys duty to stockholders, in violation of the minority stockholders rights, and
with unjust enrichment.
As judiciously discussed in the Courts August 26, 2008 Decision, the test in
determining whether the subject matter of an action is incapable of pecuniary
estimation is by ascertaining the nature of the principal action or remedy sought. It
explained:
x x x To be sure, the annulment of the shares, the dissolution of the corporation and
the appointment of receivers/management committee are actions which do not
consist in the recovery of a sum of money. If, in the end, a sum of money or real
property would be recovered, it would simply be the consequence of such principal
action. Therefore, the case before the RTC was incapable of pecuniary
estimation.22 (italics in the original, emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Actions which the Court has recognized as being incapable of pecuniary estimation
include legality of conveyances. In a case involving annulment of contract, the Court
found it to be one which cannot be estimated:
Petitioners argue that an action for annulment or rescission of a contract of sale of
real property is a real action and, therefore, the amount of the docket fees to be paid
by private respondent should be based either on the assessed value of the property,
subject matter of the action, or its estimated value as alleged in the complaint,
pursuant to the last paragraph of 7(b) of Rule 141, as amended by the Resolution of
the Court dated September 12, 1990. Since private respondents alleged that the land,
in which they claimed an interest as heirs, had been sold for P4,378,000.00 to
petitioners, this amount should be considered the estimated value of the land for the
purpose of determining the docket fees.
On the other hand, private respondents counter that an action for annulment or
rescission of a contract of sale of real property is incapable of pecuniary estimation
and, so, the docket fees should be the fixed amount of P400.00 in Rule 141, 7(b)(1).
In support of their argument, they cite the cases of Lapitan v. Scandia,
Lu Ym father and sons further inquiry from the OCA cannot redeem them. A mere
inquiry from an improper officeat that, could not, by any stretch, be considered as an
act of having raised the jurisdictional question prior to the rendition of the trial courts
decision. In one case, it was held:
Assuming arguendo that the docket fees were insufficiently paid, the doctrine of
estoppel already applies.
Here it is beyond dispute that respondents paid the full amount of docket fees as
assessed by the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan,
Branch 17, where they filed the complaint. If petitioners believed that the assessment
was incorrect, they should have questioned it before the trial court. Instead,
petitioners belatedly question the alleged underpayment of docket fees through this
petition, attempting to support their position with the opinion and certification of
the Clerk of Court of another judicial region. Needless to state, such
certification has no bearing on the instant case.27 (italics in the original; emphasis
and underscoring in the original)
The assailed August 4, 2009 Resolution cited Vargas v. Caminas24 on the nonapplicability of the Tijam doctrinewhere the issue of jurisdiction was, in fact, raised
before the trial court rendered its decision. Thus the Resolution explained:
The inequity resulting from the abrogation of the whole proceedings at this late stage
when the decision subsequently rendered was adverse to the father and sons is
precisely the evil being avoided by the equitable principle of estoppel.
Next, the Lu Ym father and sons filed a motion for the lifting of the receivership order,
which the trial court had issued in the interim. David, et al., brought the matter up to
the CA even before the trial court could resolve the motion. Thereafter, David, at al.,
filed their Motion to Admit Complaint to Conform to the Interim Rules Governing IntraCorporate Controversies. It was at this point that the Lu Ym father and sons raised
the question of the amount of filing fees paid. They also raised this point again in the
CA when they appealed the trial courts decision in the case below.
We find that, in the circumstances, the Lu Ym father and sons are not estopped from
challenging the jurisdiction of the trial court. They raised the insufficiency of the
docket fees before the trial court rendered judgment and continuously maintained
their position even on appeal to the CA. Although the manner of challenge
waserroneous they should have addressed this issue directly to the trial court
instead of the OCA they should not be deemed to have waived their right to assail
the jurisdiction of the trial court.25 (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Lu Ym father and sons did not raise the issue before the trial court. The narration of
facts in the Courts original decision shows that Lu Ym father and sons merely
inquired from the Clerk of Court on the amount of paid docket fees on January 23,
2004. They thereafter still "speculat[ed] on the fortune of litigation." 26 Thirty-seven
days later or on March 1, 2004 the trial court rendered its decision adverse to them.
Meanwhile, Lu Ym father and sons attempted to verify the matter of docket fees from
the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). In their Application for the issuance a writ
of preliminary injunction filed with the Court of Appeals, they still failed to question the
amount of docket fees paid by David Lu, et al. It was only in their Motion for
Reconsideration of the denial by the appellate court of their application for injunctive
writ that they raised such issue.
Assuming arguendo that the docket fees paid were insufficient, there is no proof of
bad faith to warrant a dismissal of the complaint, hence, the following doctrine
applies:
x x x In Sun Insurance Office, Ltd., (SIOL) v. Asuncion, this Court ruled that the filing
of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading and the payment of the prescribed
docket fee vest a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the
action. If the amount of docket fees paid is insufficient considering the amount of the
claim, the clerk of court of the lower court involved or his duly authorized deputy has
the responsibility of making a deficiency assessment. The party filing the case will be
required to pay the deficiency, but jurisdiction is not automatically lost.28 (underscoring
supplied)
The assailed Resolution of August 4, 2009 held, however, that the above-quoted
doctrine does not apply since there was intent to defraud the government, citing one
attendant circumstance the annotation of notices of lis pendens on real properties
owned by LLDC. It deduced:
From the foregoing, it is clear that a notice of lis pendens is availed of mainly in real
actions. Hence, when David,et al., sought the annotation of notices of lis pendens on
the titles of LLDC, they acknowledged that the complaint they had filed affected a title
to or a right to possession of real properties. At the very least, they must have been
fully aware that the docket fees would be based on the value of the realties involved.
Their silence or inaction to point this out to the Clerk of Court who computed their
docket fees, therefore, becomes highly suspect, and thus, sufficient for this Court to
conclude that they have crossed beyond the threshold of good faith and into the area
2.
All findings of fraud should begin the exposition with the presumption of good faith.
The inquiry is not whether there was good faith on the part of David, et al., but
whether there was bad faith on their part.
3.
The erroneous annotation of a notice of lis pendens does not negate good faith. The
overzealousness of a party in protecting pendente lite his perceived interest, inchoate
or otherwise, in the corporations properties from depletion or dissipation, should not
be lightly equated to bad faith.
That notices of lis pendens were erroneously annotated on the titles does not have
the effect of changing the nature of the action. The aggrieved party is not left without
a remedy, for they can move to cancel the annotations. The assailed August 4, 2009
Resolution, however, deemed such act as an acknowledgement that the case they
filed was a real action, concerning as it indirectly does the corporate realties, the titles
of which were allegedly annotated. This conclusion does not help much in
ascertaining the filing fees because the value of these real properties and the value of
the 600,000 shares of stock are different.
Further, good faith can be gathered from the series of amendments on the provisions
on filing fees, that the Court was even prompted to make a clarification.1avvphi1
When David Lu, et al. filed the Complaint on August 14, 2000 or five days after the
effectivity of the Securities Regulation Code or Republic Act No. 8799,30 the then
Section 7 of Rule 141 was the applicable provision, without any restricted reference
to paragraphs (a) and (b) 1 & 3 or paragraph (a) alone. Said section then provided:
SEC. 7. Clerks of Regional Trial Courts.
(a) For filing an action or a permissive counterclaim or money claim against
an estate not based on judgment, or for filing with leave of court a third-party,
fourth-party, etc. complaint, or a complaint in intervention, and for all clerical
services in the same, if the total sum claimed, exclusive of
interest, or thestated value of the property in litigation, is:
.
xxx
In a real action, the assessed value of the property, or if there is none, the estimated
value thereof shall be alleged by the claimant and shall be the basis in computing the
fees.
x x x x31 (emphasis supplied)
The Court, by Resolution of September 4, 2001 in A. M. No. 00-8-10-SC, 32 clarified
the matter of legal fees to be collected in cases formerly cognizable by the Securities
and Exchange Commission following their transfer to the RTC.
Clarification has been sought on the legal fees to be collected and the period of
appeal applicable in cases formerly cognizable by the Securities and Exchange
Commission. It appears that the Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate
Rehabilitation and the Interim Rules of Procedure for Intra-Corporate Controversies
do not provide the basis for the assessment of filing fees and the period of appeal in
cases transferred from the Securities and Exchange Commission to particular
Regional Trial Courts.
The nature of the above mentioned cases should first be ascertained. Section 3(a),
Rule 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure defines civil action as one by which a
party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or
redress of a wrong. It further states that a civil action may either be ordinary or
special, both being governed by the rules for ordinary civil actions subject to the
special rules prescribed for special civil actions. Section 3(c) of the same Rule,
defines a special proceeding as a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a
status, a right, or a particular fact.
Applying these definitions, the cases covered by the Interim Rules for IntraCorporate Controversies should be considered as ordinary civil actions. These
cases either seek the recovery of damages/property or specific performance of
an act against a party for the violation or protection of a right. These cases are:
xxxx
(b) For filing:
1.
(1) Devices or schemes employed by, or any act of, the board of directors,
business associates, officers or partners, amounting to fraud or
misrepresentation which may be detrimental to the interest of the public
and/or of the stockholders, partners, or members of any corporation,
partnership, or association;
If the complaint were filed today, one could safely find refuge in the express
phraseology of Section 21 (k) of Rule 141 that paragraph (a) alone applies.
In the present case, however, the original Complaint was filed on August 14, 2000
during which time Section 7, without qualification, was the applicable provision. Even
the Amended Complaint was filed on March 31, 2003 during which time the applicable
rule expressed that paragraphs (a) and (b) l & 3 shall be the basis for computing the
filing fees in intra-corporate cases, recognizing that there could be an intra-corporate
controversy where the value of the subject matter cannot be estimated, such as an
action for inspection of corporate books. The immediate illustration shows that no
mistake can even be attributed to the RTC clerk of court in the assessment of the
docket fees.
Finally, assuming there was deficiency in paying the docket fees and assuming
further that there was a mistake in computation, the deficiency may be considered a
lien on the judgment that may be rendered, there being no established intent to
defraud the government.
WHEREFORE, the assailed Resolutions of August 4, 2009 and September 23, 2009
are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Courts Decision of August 26, 2008
is REINSTATED.
The Court of Appeals is DIRECTED to resume the proceedings and resolve the
remaining issues with utmost dispatch in CA-G.R. CV No. 81163.
SO ORDERED.
In fine, the basis for computing the filing fees in intra-corporate cases shall
be section 7(a) and (b) l & 3of Rule 141. For petitions for rehabilitation, section 7(d)
shall be applied. (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
The new Section 21(k) of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No.
04-2-04-SC33 (July 20, 2004), expressly provides that "[f]or petitions for insolvency
or other cases involving intra-corporate controversies, the fees prescribed
under Section 7(a) shall apply." Notatu dignum is that paragraph (b) 1 & 3 of Section
7 thereof was omitted from the reference. Said paragraph 34 refers to docket fees for
filing "[a]ctions where the value of the subject matter cannot be estimated" and "all
other actions not involving property."
By referring the computation of such docket fees to paragraph (a) only, it denotes
that an intra-corporate controversy always involves a property in litigation, the value
of which is always the basis for computing the applicable filing fees. The latest
amendments seem to imply that there can be no case of intra-corporate controversy
where the value of the subject matter cannot be estimated. Even one for a mere
inspection of corporate books.
The defendant shall file their answer within fifteen (15) days from receipt of this
order.13
From this Order, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration and clarification on
whether plaintiffs should be allowed to continue prosecuting the case as indigent
litigants.
Petitioner Ceferina filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the RTC denied in an
Order9 dated February 4, 2000.
Petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion 10 asking the RTC to resolve the issues of (1)
whether or not the complaint should be dismissed or expunged from the records
pursuant to Supreme Court (SC) Circular No. 7; (2) reconsidering the findings
contained in the Order dated February 4, 2000; and (3) holding in abeyance the
submission of the answer to the complaint.
Pending resolution of the motion, respondents filed a Motion to Allow11 them to
continue prosecuting this case as indigent litigants.
On March 8, 2000, the RTC resolved the Omnibus Motion in an Order 12 that read in
this wise:
On the omnibus motion regarding filing fees, the plaintiffs asserted in its motion that
they are charging defendant actual and compensatory damages such as are proved
during the hearing of this case. So also are attorneys fees and moral damages, all to
be proved during the hearing of this case.
As has been said, the plaintiff asserted in its motion that they are charging defendants
actual and compensatory damages as has been proved during the hearing of this
case. So also are attorney's fees and moral damages all to be proved during the
hearing of this case.
Since there was no hearing yet, they are not in a possession (sic) to determine how
much is to be charged.
At any rate, after hearing, the Clerk of Court determines that the filing fee is still
insufficient, the same shall be considered as lien on the judgment that may be
entered.
As to the motion seeking from the Honorable Court allowance to allow plaintiff to
continue prosecuting this case as indigent litigants, suffice it to say that the same is
already provided for in this order.
WHEREFORE, the defendants shall file their answer within fifteen (15) days from
receipt of this Order.15
Since there was no hearing yet, they are not in a possession (sic) to determine how
much is to be charged.
In an Order dated May 31, 2000, the RTC again denied petitioner's motion for
reconsideration.
At any rate, if after hearing the Clerk of Court determine that the filing fees is still
insufficient, considering the total amount of the claim, the Clerk of Court should
determine and, thereafter, if any amount is found due, he must require the private
respondent to pay the same x x x.
Petitioner filed with the CA a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for the
issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction.
Petitioner sought the nullification of the Order dated November 19, 1999 and the
subsequent orders issued by the RTC thereto for having been issued with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Respondents filed their
Comment thereto.
As to the second issue, the same has already been decided in its order dated
February 4, 2000.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the omnibus motion is DENIED.
In a Decision dated May 26, 2004, the CA dismissed the petition. The CA found that
SC Circular No. 7 would not apply where the amount of damages or value of the
property was immaterial; that the Circular could be applied only in cases where the
(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real
property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value of the property
involved exceeds Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) or for civil actions in
Metro Manila, where such value exceeds Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P50,000.00), except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of
lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts; x x x
Section 3 of RA No. 7691 expanded the exclusive original jurisdiction of the first level
courts, thus:
Section 3. Section 33 of the same law (BP Blg. 129) is hereby amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts in Civil Cases. Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts,
and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
xxxx
(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, or possession
of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value of the property or
It would appear that the first cause of action involves the issue of recovery of
possession and interest of the parties over the subject land which is a real action.
Respondents alleged that the assessed value of the subject land was P12,780.00
based on Tax Declaration No. 15272. Thus, since it is a real action with an assessed
value of less than P20,000.00, the case would fall under the jurisdiction of the MTC
as provided under the above-quoted Section 33 (3) of BP 129, as amended.
Respondents filed their Complaint with the RTC; hence, we would first determine
whether the RTC has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case based on the
above-quoted provisions.
The Complaint filed by respondents in the RTC was for ownership, possession and
damages, and alternative causes of action either to declare two documents as patent
nullities and/or for recovery of conjugal share on the subject land with damages or
redemption of the subject land. In their Complaint, respondents claimed that Rosario
and Fernando are the registered owners of the subject land with an assessed value
of P12,780.00; that the couple left the cultivation and enjoyment of the usufruct of the
subject land to Fernando's mother and her second family to augment their means of
livelihood; that respondent Rosario and Fernando thought that when the latter's
mother died in 1980, the subject land was in the enjoyment of the second family of his
mother, but later learned that the subject land was leased by petitioner Ceferina; that
sometime in August 1999, respondents learned of the existence of the Deed of
Transfer of Rights and Interest including Improvements thereon dated October 3,
1960, where Fernando had allegedly transferred his rights and interests on the
subject land in favor of Eugenio, petitioner Ceferina's father, as well as an Affidavit of
Relinquishment dated November 23, 1960 executed by Eugenio in favor of petitioner
Ceferina; that Fernando's signature in the Deed of Transfer was not his but a forgery;
and the Affidavit of Relinquishment was also void as it was a direct result of a
simulated Deed of Transfer.
Respondents prayed that they be declared as absolute and lawful owners of the
subject land and to order petitioner and the other defendants to vacate the premises
and restore respondents to its possession and enjoyment therefore. On their second
cause of action, they prayed that the Deed of Transfer of Rights and Interest Including
Improvements Thereon be declared as a forgery, purely simulated and without any
consideration; hence, inexistent, void ab initio and/or a patent nullity, as well as the
Affidavit of Relinquishment which was the direct result of the Deed of Transfer.
Respondents also prayed in the alternative that if the Deed be finally upheld as valid,
to order petitioner to reconvey to respondent Rosario the undivided one-half portion of
the subject land as conjugal owner thereof and to account and reimburse her of its
usufruct; and/or to allow them to redeem the subject land.
are jointly and severally liable to plaintiffs of the produce thereby in the following
proportions, viz: (a) for defendant Ceferina de Ungria for a period of time claimed by
her as such; (b) for defendants Dolores Cagautan, a certain alias "Dory," and PO1
Jonas Montales, of an undetermined area, the latter having entered the area
sometime in 1998 and defendant alias "Dory," only just few months ago; that
defendant Ignacio Olarte and Zacasio Puutan of occupying about one-half hectare
each.27
x x x Ordering the defendants, jointly and severally, in proportion to the length and
area of their respective occupancy, to pay reasonable rentals to the plaintiffs in the
proportion and amount assessed in paragraph 13 of the First Cause of Action.
2. x x x
xxxx
In a real action, the assessed value of the property, or if there is none, the
estimated value thereof shall be alleged by the claimant and shall be the
basis in computing the fees.25
Since we find that the case involved the annulment of contract which is not
susceptible of pecuniary estimation, thus, falling within the jurisdiction of the RTC, the
docket fees should not be based on the assessed value of the subject land as
claimed by petitioner in their memorandum, but should be based on Section 7(b)(1) of
Rule 141. A perusal of the entries in the Legal Fees Form attached to the records
would reflect that the amount of P400.00 was paid to the Clerk of Court, together with
the other fees, as assessed by the Clerk of Court. Thus, upon respondents' proof of
payment of the assessed fees, the RTC has properly acquired jurisdiction over the
complaint. Jurisdiction once acquired is never lost, it continues until the case is
terminated. 26
Notably, petitioners claim that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction in this case is
premised on her contention that respondents violated SC Circular No. 7 issued on
March 24, 1998 requiring that all complaints must specify the amount of damages
sought not only in the body of the pleadings but also in the prayer to be accepted and
admitted for filing. Petitioner argues that respondents alleged in paragraph 13 of their
Complaint that:
(T)he reasonable rental for the use of the [subject] land is P2,000.00 per hectare,
every crop time, once every four months, or P6,000.00 a year per hectare; that
defendants in proportion and length of time of their respective occupancy is and/or
(a) Ordering the defendants, jointly and severally, to pay plaintiffs actual and
compensatory damages such as are proved during the hearing of this case;
(b) Ordering the defendants, jointly and severally, to pay plaintiffs attorneys'
fees and moral damages, all to be proved during the hearing of this case.28
Thus, the RTC should have dismissed the case, since respondents did not specify the
amount of damages in their prayer.
We are not persuaded.
SC Circular No. 7 was brought about by our ruling in Manchester Development
Corporation v. Court of Appeals,29where we held that a pleading which does not
specify in the prayer the amount of damages being asked for shall not be accepted or
admitted, or shall otherwise be expunged from the record; and that the Court acquires
jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fee.
However, in Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. v. Asuncion,30 we laid down the following
guidelines in the payment of docket fees, to wit:
1. It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading,
but the payment of the prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court with
jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action. Where the filing of
the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by payment of the docket fee, the
after hearing, the Clerk of Court determines that the filing fee is still insufficient, the
same shall be considered as lien on the judgment that may be entered."
Petitioner claims that the action is barred by extraordinary acquisitive prescription and
laches. Petitioner contends that she took possession of the land in the concept of an
owner, open, exclusive, notorious and continuous since 1952 through her
predecessor-in-interest, Eugenio, and by herself up to the present; that the late
Fernando and private respondents had never taken possession of the land at any
single moment; and that, granting without admitting that the transfer of rights between
Fernando and Eugenio was null and void for any reason whatsoever, petitioner's
possession of the land had already ripened into ownership after the lapse of 30 years
from August 1952 by virtue of the extraordinary acquisitive prescription.
3. Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over a claim by the filing of the
appropriate pleading and payment of the prescribed filing fee but,
subsequently, the judgment awards a claim not specified in the pleading, or
if specified the same has been left for determination by the court, the
additional filing fee therefor shall constitute a lien on the judgment. It shall be
the responsibility of the Clerk of Court or his duly-authorized deputy to
enforce said lien and assess and collect the additional fee.
Subsequently, in Heirs of Bertuldo Hinog v. Melicor,31 we said:
Furthermore, the fact that private respondents prayed for payment of damages "in
amounts justified by the evidence" does not call for the dismissal of the complaint for
violation of SC Circular No. 7, dated March 24, 1988 which required that all
complaints must specify the amount of damages sought not only in the body of the
pleadings but also in the prayer in order to be accepted and admitted for filing. Sun
Insurance effectively modified SC Circular No. 7 by providing that filing fees for
damages and awards that cannot be estimated constitute liens on the awards finally
granted by the trial court.
x x x judgment awards which were left for determination by the court or as may be
proven during trial would still be subject to additional filing fees which shall constitute
a lien on the judgment. It would then be the responsibility of the Clerk of Court of the
trial court or his duly-authorized deputy to enforce said lien and assess and collect the
additional fees.32
A reading of the allegations in the complaint would show that the amount of the rental
due can only be determined after a final judgment, since there is a need to show
supporting evidence when the petitioner and the other defendants started to possess
the subject land. Thus, we find no reversible error committed by the CA when it ruled
that there was no grave abuse of discretion committed by the RTC in issuing its Order
dated March 30, 2000, where the RTC stated that "since there was no hearing yet,
respondents are not in a position to determine how much is to be charged and that
(B.P.) Blg. 129, as amended by Section 3(3) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7691. 5 He
averred that
(1) the complaint failed to state the assessed value of the land in dispute;
4. That, demands have been made of the defendant to vacate the premises but the
latter manifested that he have (sic) asked the prior consent of their grandmother,
Concepcion Mazo Salvador;
5. That, to reach a possible amicable settlement, the plaintiffs brought the matter to
the Lupon of Barangay Sawang, to no avail, evidenced by the CERTIFICATE TO
FILE ACTION hereto attached as ANNEX B;
6. That, the unjustified refusal of the defendant to vacate the property has caused the
plaintiffs to suffer shame, humiliation, wounded feelings, anxiety and sleepless nights;
7. That, to protect their rights and interest, plaintiffs were constrained to engage the
services of a lawyer.3
The petitioners prayed that, after due proceedings, judgment be rendered in their
favor, thus:
(2) the complaint does not sufficiently identify and/or describe the parcel of land
referred to as the subject-matter of this action;
both of which are essential requisites for determining the jurisdiction of the Court
where the case is filed. In this case, however, the assessed value of the land in
question is totally absent in the allegations of the complaint and there is nothing in the
relief prayed for which can be picked-up for determining the Courts jurisdiction as
provided by law.
In the face of this predicament, it can nevertheless be surmised by reading between
the lines, that the assessed value of the land in question cannot exceed P20,000.00
and, as such, it falls within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court of Romblon and
should have been filed before said Court rather than before the RTC. 6
The petitioners opposed the motion.7 They contended that the RTC had jurisdiction
over the action since the court can take judicial notice of the market value of the
property in question, which was P200.00 per square meter and considering that the
property was 14,797 square meters, more or less, the total value thereof
isP3,500,000.00. Besides, according to the petitioners, the motion to dismiss was
premature and "the proper time to interpose it is when the [petitioners] introduced
evidence that the land is of such value."
a.1. transportation expenses in connection with the projected settlement of the case
amounting to P1,500.00 and for the subsequent attendance to the hearing of this
case at P1,500.00 each schedule;
On November 7, 1996, the RTC issued an Order 8 denying the motion to dismiss,
holding that the action was incapable of pecuniary estimation, and therefore,
cognizable by the RTC as provided in Section 19(1) of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended.
a.2. attorneys fees in the amount of P20,000.00 and P500.00 for every court
appearance;
After the denial of the motion to dismiss, the private respondent filed his answer with
counterclaim.9 Traversing the material allegations of the complaint, he contended that
the petitioners had no cause of action against him since the property in dispute was
the conjugal property of his grandparents, the spouses Salustiano Salvador and
Concepcion Mazo-Salvador.
WHEREFORE, it is prayed of this Honorable Court that after due process (sic), an
order be issued for the defendant to vacate and peacefully turn over to the plaintiffs
the occupied property and that defendant be made to pay plaintiffs:
b. moral and exemplary damages in such amount incumbent upon the Honorable
Court to determine; and
c. such other relief and remedies just and equitable under the premises.4
The private respondent filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack
of jurisdiction over the nature of the action, citing Section 33 of Batas Pambansa
On April 8, 1997, Regidor and Virginia Salvador filed their Answer-inIntervention10 making common cause with the private respondent. On her own
motion, however, Virginia Salvador was dropped as intervenor.11
II
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS REVERSIBLE
ERROR IN ORDERING THE REFILING OF THE CASE IN THE [PROPER] COURT,
INSTEAD OF DECIDING THE CASE ON THE MERITS BASED ON THE COMPLETE
RECORDS ELEVATED BEFORE SAID APPELLATE COURT AND IN NOT
AFFIRMING IN TOTO THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT.17
The Ruling of the Court
The lone issue for our resolution is whether the RTC had jurisdiction over the action
of the petitioners, the plaintiffs in the RTC, against the private respondent, who was
the defendant therein.
The petitioners maintain that the RTC has jurisdiction since their action is an accion
reinvindicatoria, an action incapable of pecuniary estimation; thus, regardless of the
assessed value of the subject property, exclusive jurisdiction falls within the said
court. Besides, according to the petitioners, in their opposition to respondents motion
to dismiss, they made mention of the increase in the assessed value of the land in
question in the amount of P3.5 million. Moreover, the petitioners maintain that their
action is also one for damages exceedingP20,000.00, over which the RTC has
exclusive jurisdiction under R.A. No. 7691.
The petition has no merit.
It bears stressing that the nature of the action and which court has original and
exclusive jurisdiction over the same is determined by the material allegations of the
complaint, the type of relief prayed for by the plaintiff and the law in effect when the
action is filed, irrespective of whether the plaintiffs are entitled to some or all of the
claims asserted therein.18 The caption of the complaint is not determinative of the
nature of the action. Nor does the jurisdiction of the court depend upon the answer of
the defendant or agreement of the parties or to the waiver or acquiescence of the
parties.
We do not agree with the contention of the petitioners and the ruling of the CA that
the action of the petitioners in the RTC was an accion reinvindicatoria. We find and so
rule that the action of the petitioners was an accion publiciana, or one for the recovery
of possession of the real property subject matter thereof. An accion reinvindicatoria is
a suit which has for its object the recovery of possession over the real property as
owner. It involves recovery of ownership and possession based on the said
ownership. On the other hand, an accion publiciana is one for the recovery of
possession of the right to possess. It is also referred to as an ejectment suit filed after
upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts.
The action of the petitioners filed on September 3, 1996 does not involve a claim of
ownership over the property. They allege that they are co-owners thereof, and as
such, entitled to its possession, and that the private respondent, who was the
defendant, constructed his house thereon in 1989 without their knowledge and
refused to vacate the property despite demands for him to do so. They prayed that
the private respondent vacate the property and restore possession thereof to them.
The jurisdiction of the court over an action involving title to or possession of land is
now determined by the assessed value of the said property and not the market value
thereof. The assessed value of real property is the fair market value of the real
property multiplied by the assessment level. It is synonymous to taxable value. 20 The
fair market value is the price at which a property may be sold by a seller, who is not
compelled to sell, and bought by a buyer, who is not compelled to buy.
When the petitioners filed their complaint on September 3, 1996, R.A. No. 7691 was
already in effect. Section 33(3) of the law provides:
Even a cursory reading of the complaint will show that it does not contain an
allegation stating the assessed value of the property subject of the complaint. 21 The
court cannot take judicial notice of the assessed or market value of lands. 22 Absent
any allegation in the complaint of the assessed value of the property, it cannot thus be
determined whether the RTC or the MTC had original and exclusive jurisdiction over
the petitioners action.
Sec. 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts in Civil Cases. Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts
and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, or possession
of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value of the property or
interest therein does not exceed Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) or, in civil
actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value does not exceed Fifty Thousand
Pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorneys fees,
litigation expenses and costs: Provided, That in cases of land not declared for
taxation purposes, the value of such property shall be determined by the assessed
value of the adjacent lots.
Section 19(2) of the law, likewise, provides that:
Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. The Regional Trial Court shall exercise exclusive
original jurisdiction:
(2) In all civil actions, which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any
interest therein, where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds Twenty
Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) or, for civil actions in Metro Manila, where such value
exceeds Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) except actions for forcible entry into and
unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred
We note that during the trial, the petitioners adduced in evidence Tax Declaration No.
8590-A, showing that the assessed value of the property in 1991 was P5,950.00. The
petitioners, however, did not bother to adduce in evidence the tax declaration
containing the assessed value of the property when they filed their complaint in 1996.
Even assuming that the assessed value of the property in 1991 was the same in 1995
or 1996, the MTC, and not the RTC had jurisdiction over the action of the petitioners
since the case involved title to or possession of real property with an assessed value
of less than P20,000.00.23
We quote with approval, in this connection, the CAs disquisition:
The determining jurisdictional element for the accion reinvindicatoria is, as RA 7691
discloses, the assessed value of the property in question. For properties in the
provinces, the RTC has jurisdiction if the assessed value exceeds P20,000, and the
MTC, if the value is P20,000 or below. An assessed value can have reference only to
the tax rolls in the municipality where the property is located, and is contained in the
tax declaration. In the case at bench, the most recent tax declaration secured and
presented by the plaintiffs-appellees is Exhibit B. The loose remark made by them
that the property was worth 3.5 million pesos, not to mention that there is absolutely
no evidence for this, is irrelevant in the light of the fact that there is an assessed
value. It is the amount in the tax declaration that should be consulted and no other
kind of value, and as appearing in Exhibit B, this is P5,950. The case, therefore, falls
within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court of Romblon which
has jurisdiction over the territory where the property is located, and not the court a
quo.24
Since the RTC had no jurisdiction over the action of the petitioners, all the
proceedings therein, including the decision of the RTC, are null and void. The
complaint should perforce be dismissed.27
Unavailing also is the petitioners argumentation that since the complaint, likewise,
seeks the recovery of damages exceeding P20,000.00, then the RTC had original
jurisdiction over their actions. Section 33(3) of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended, quoted
earlier, explicitly excludes from the determination of the jurisdictional amount the
demand for "interest, damages of whatever kind, attorneys fees, litigation expenses,
and costs." This Court issued Administrative Circular No. 09-94 setting the guidelines
in the implementation of R.A. No. 7691, and paragraph 2 thereof states that
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 63737 are AFFIRMED. Costs against the
petitioners.
(8) In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever
kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs or the value of the property in
controversy exceeds One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) or, in such other
cases in Metro Manila, where the demand, exclusive of the above-mentioned items
exceeds Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00).
The said provision is applicable only to "all other cases" other than an action involving
title to, or possession of real property in which the assessed value is the controlling
factor in determining the courts jurisdiction. The said damages are merely incidental
to, or a consequence of, the main cause of action for recovery of possession of real
property.26
SO ORDERED.
DE
GUIA
PEDRO
and
ALEJO
DOPEO, Petitioners,
The MeTC then issued an Order 4 dated July 4, 2002 denying the motion to dismiss,
ruling that, under Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 129, as amended, the MeTC had
exclusive original jurisdiction over actions involving title to or possession of real
property of small value.
DARMA
MASLAG, Petitioner,
vs.
ELIZABETH MONZON, WILLIAM GESTON, and REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF
BENGUET, Respondents.
DECISION
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
"It is incumbent upon x x x appellants to utilize the correct mode of appeal of the
decisions of trial courts to the appellate courts. In the mistaken choice of their remedy,
they can blame no one but themselves."1
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari2 of the May 31, 2006 Resolution3 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 83365, which dismissed petitioner Darma
Maslag's (petitioner) ordinary appeal to it for being an improper remedy. The
Resolution disposed of the case as follows:
WHEREFORE, the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and the Appeal is hereby
DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.4
remedies afforded by law to a builder in good faith for the improvements she
constructed thereon.
Factual Antecedents
SO ORDERED.14
After trial, the MTC found respondent Monzon guilty of fraud in obtaining an OCT over
petitioners property.8 It ordered her to reconvey the said property to petitioner, and to
pay damages and costs of suit.9
Respondents appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of La Trinidad, Benguet.
After going over the MTC records and the parties respective memoranda, the RTC of
La Trinidad, Benguet, Branch 10, through Acting Presiding Judge Fernando P. Cabato
(Judge Cabato), issued its October 22, 2003 Order,10 declaring the MTC without
jurisdiction over petitioners cause of action. It further held that it will take cognizance
of the case pursuant to Section 8, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court, which reads:
SECTION 8. Appeal from orders dismissing case without trial; lack of jurisdiction. x
xx
If the case was tried on the merits by the lower court without jurisdiction over the
subject matter, the Regional Trial Court on appeal shall not dismiss the case if it has
original jurisdiction thereof, but shall decide the case in accordance with the
preceding section, without prejudice to the admission of amended pleadings and
additional evidence in the interest of justice. Both parties acknowledged receipt of the
October 22, 2003 Order,11 but neither presented additional evidence before the new
judge, Edgardo B. Diaz De Rivera, Jr. (Judge Diaz De Rivera).12
On May 4, 2004, Judge Diaz De Rivera issued a Resolution 13 reversing the MTC
Decision. The fallo reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, the Judgment appealed from the Municipal Trial Court of La Trinidad,
Benguet is set aside. [Petitioner] is ordered to turn over the possession of the 4,415
square meter land she presently occupies to [Monzon]. This case is remanded to the
court a quo for further proceedings to determine whether [Maslag] is entitled to the
Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal15 from the RTCs May 4, 2004 Resolution.
Petitioner assailed the RTCs May 4, 2004 Resolution for reversing the MTCs factual
findings16 and prayed that the MTC Decision be adopted. Her prayer before the CA
reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that the decision
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 10 of La Trinidad, Benguet, appealed from be
reversed in toto and that the Honorable Court adopt the decision of the Municipal Trial
Court. Further reliefs just and equitable under the premises are prayed for.17
Respondents moved to dismiss petitioners ordinary appeal for being the improper
remedy. They asserted that the proper mode of appeal is a Petition for Review under
Rule 42 because the RTC rendered its May 4, 2004 Resolution in its appellate
jurisdiction.18
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The CA dismissed petitioners appeal. It observed that the RTCs May 4, 2004
Resolution (the subject matter of the appeal before the CA) set aside an MTC
Judgment; hence, the proper remedy is a Petition for Review under Rule 42, and not
an ordinary appeal.19
Petitioner sought reconsideration.20 She argued, for the first time, that the RTC
rendered its May 4, 2004 Resolution in its original jurisdiction. She cited the earlier
October 22, 2003 Order of the RTC declaring the MTC without jurisdiction over the
case.
The CA denied petitioners Motion for Reconsideration in its September 22, 2006
Resolution:21
A perusal of the May 4, 2004 Resolution of the RTC, which is the subject matter of the
appeal, clearly reveals that it took cognizance of the MTC case in the exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction. Consequently, as We have previously enunciated, the proper
We cannot, however, gloss over this jurisdictional faux pas of the RTC. Since it
involves a question of jurisdiction, we may motu proprio review and pass upon the
same even at this late stage of the proceedings.25
In her Complaint26 for reconveyance of real property with declaration of nullity of OCT,
petitioner claimed that she and her father had been in open, continuous, notorious
and exclusive possession of the disputed property since the 1940s. She averred:
7. Sometime in the year 1987, Elizabeth Monzon, the owner of the adjacent
parcel of land being occupied by plaintiff [Maslag], informed the plaintiff that
the respective parcels of land being claimed by them can now be titled. A
suggestion was, thereafter made, that those who were interested to have
their lands titled, will contribute to a common fund for the surveying and
subsequent titling of the land;
8. Since plaintiff had, for so long, yearned for a title to the land she occupies,
she contributed to the amount being requested by Elizabeth Monzon;
9. A subdivision survey was made and in the survey, the respective areas of
the plaintiff and the defendants were defined and delimited all for purposes
of titling. x x x
10. But alas, despite the assurance of subdivided titles, when the title was
finally issued by the Registry of Deeds, the same was only in the name of
Elizabeth Monzon and WILLIAM GESTON. The name of Darma Maslag was
fraudulently, deliberately and in bad faith omitted. Thus, the title to the
property, to the extent of 18,295 square meters, was titled solely in the name
of ELIZABETH MONZON.
As a relief, petitioner prayed that Monzon be ordered to reconvey the portion of the
property which she claimed was fraudulently included in Monzons title. Her primary
relief was to recover ownership of real property. Indubitably, petitioners complaint
involves title to real property. An action "involving title to real property," on the other
hand, was defined as an action where "the plaintiffs cause of action is based on a
claim that she owns such property or that she has the legal rights to have exclusive
control, possession, enjoyment, or disposition of the same."27
Under the present state of the law, in cases involving title to real property, original and
exclusive jurisdiction belongs to either the RTC or the MTC, depending on the
assessed value of the subject property.28 Pertinent provisions of Batas Pambansa Blg.
(BP) 129,29 as amended by Republic Act (RA) No. 7691,30 provides:
Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court provides for the dismissal of an improper
appeal:
(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of
pecuniary estimation;
(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real
property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value of the property
involved exceeds Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or for civil actions in
Metro Manila, where x x x the assessed value of the property exceeds Fifty
thousand pesos ([P]50,000.00) except actions for forcible entry into and
unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is
conferred upon Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;
xxxx
SEC. 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Civil Cases. Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal
Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
xxxx
(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, or possession
of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value of the property or
interest therein does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, in civil
actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value does not exceed Fifty thousand
pesos (P50,000.00) x x x.
In the case at bench, annexed to the Complaint is a Declaration of Real
Property31 dated November 12, 1991, which was later marked as petitioners Exhibit
"A",32 showing that the disputed property has an assessed value ofP12,40033 only.
Such assessed value of the property is well within the jurisdiction of the MTC. In fine,
the RTC, thru Judge Cabato, erred in applying Section 19(1) of BP 129 in determining
which court has jurisdiction over the case and in pronouncing that the MTC is
divested of original and exclusive jurisdiction.
This brings to fore the next issue of whether the CA was correct in dismissing
petitioners appeal.
An appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall not be transferred to the
appropriate court but shall be dismissed outright.1wphi1 (Emphasis supplied)
There are two modes of appealing an RTC decision or resolution on issues of fact
and law.34 The first mode is an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 in cases where the
RTC exercised its original jurisdiction. It is done by filing a Notice of Appeal with the
RTC. The second mode is a petition for review under Rule 42 in cases where the
RTC exercised its appellate jurisdiction over MTC decisions. It is done by filing a
Petition for Review with the CA. Simply put, the distinction between these two modes
of appeal lies in the type of jurisdiction exercised by the RTC in the Order or Decision
being appealed.
As discussed above, the MTC has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the subject
matter of the case; hence, there is no other way the RTC could have taken
cognizance of the case and review the court a quos Judgment except in the exercise
of its appellate jurisdiction. Besides, the new RTC Judge who penned the May 4,
2004 Resolution, Judge Diaz de Rivera, actually treated the case as an appeal
despite the October 22, 2003 Order. He started his Resolution by stating, "This is an
appeal from the Judgment rendered by the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of La Trinidad
Benguet"35 and then proceeded to discuss the merits of the "appeal." In the
dispositive portion of said Resolution, he reversed the MTCs findings and
conclusions and remanded residual issues for trial with the MTC. Thus, in fact and in
law, the RTC Resolution was a continuation of the proceedings that originated from
the MTC. It was a judgment issued by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction. With regard to the RTCs earlier October 22, 2003 Order, the same should
be disregarded for it produces no effect (other than to confuse the parties whether the
RTC was invested with original or appellate jurisdiction). It cannot be overemphasized
that jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred only by law and it is "not within
the courts, let alone the parties, to themselves determine or conveniently set
aside."37 Neither would the active participation of the parties nor estoppel operate to
confer original and exclusive jurisdiction where the court or tribunal only wields
appellate jurisdiction over the case.38 Thus, the CA is correct in holding that the
INC., petitioner,
(2)
P1,000.000.00
exemplary damages and
VITUG, J.:
The instant matter has been brought to this Court via a petition for review under Rule
45 of the Rules of Court to seek a reversal of the decision of the decision of the
Regional Trial Court ("RTC") of Manila, Branch 16, in Civil Case No. 9785267.1wphi1.nt
Cyborg Leasing Corporation ("Cyborg"), herein private respondent, filed on 22 August
1996 before the Metropolitan Trial Court ("MTC") of Manila a case, captioned
"Damages with Prayer for a Writ of Replevin" (Civil Case No. 152839), against
Conpac Warehousing, Inc. ("Conpac"), and herein petitioner Movers-Baseco
Integrated Port Services ("Movers"). The complaint alleged that pursuant to a lease
agreement, Cyborg had delivered one (1) NISSAN forklift to CONPAC. The lease
agreement stipulated a monthly rental of P11,000.00 for the use of the equipment
from its date of delivery. Conpac supposedly failed and refused to pay the stipulated
rentals starting April 1995 notwithstanding demands therefor. Sometime in May 1995,
petitioner took control of the operations of Conpac and seized all cargoes and
equipment including the subject forklift. Petitioner ignored Cyborg's demand for the
return to it of the equipment and the formal disclaimer of ownership made by
CONPAC. In its Complaint, Cyborg prayed:
UPON RECEIPT AND BEFORE ANSWER
as
Total P1,442,000.00
On 18 March 1997, the MTC issued an order dismissing the complaint for lack of
jurisdiction, and ratiocinating, thus
the
petition
(3) Cyborg's special civil action of certiorari and prohibition before the RTC can be a
substitute for a lost appeal; and
(4) a temporary restraining order or preliminary writ of injunction can be issued
without an injunction bond apart from the replevin bond.
The threshold issue concerns MTC's jurisdiction over the action filed by Cyborg in
Civil Case No. 152839 for "Damages with prayer for a writ of replevin." Hardly
disputable is that the jurisdiction of the court and the nature of the action must be
determined by the averments in the complaint and the character of the relief
sought 8 vis-a-visthe corresponding provisions of the law involved. 9
Sec. 33 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691, states:
and 10 June 1997 dismissing the complaint and denying the motion of private
respondent, respectively, were properly decreed.
Another set back for Cyborg's cause was the fact that its petition for certiorari, with
preliminary injunction and prayer for temporary restraining order, filed before the RTC
should not have been allowed not only for being late but also for not being a valid
substitute for a lost appeal. A petition for certiorari under the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure should be filed within 60 days from receipt of the assailed decision, order
or resolution. Cyborg's petition with the RTC was filed fourteen (14) days late 10 on 26
September 1997, or on the 74th day from its receipt of the order denying the motion
for reconsideration on 14 July 1997. The RTC acted on the mistaken notion that the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure took effect only in October 1997; in fact, the new rules
became operative since 01 July 1997.
Having thus concluded, the Court need not take up the other issues raised.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review is GRANTED, and the decision of the Regional
Trial Court of Manila in Civil Case No. 97-85267 is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The
orders dated 18 March 1997, 10 June 1997 and 22 August 1997 of the Metropolitan
Trial Court of Manila in Civil Case No. 152839 for "Damages With Prayer for a Writ of
Replevin" are reinstated. Civil Case No. 152839 for damages is ordered DISMISSED
for lack of jurisdiction.1wphi1.nt
SO ORDERED.
because his claim for actual damages does not exceed P200,000.00 which amount
falls under the jurisdiction of the MTC.
Furthermore, while admitting that the defense of lack of jurisdiction was only raised
during the trial, petitioners nevertheless contend that jurisdiction may be raised
anytime, even after judgment, but before it is barred by laches or estoppel. They
submit that they seasonably presented the objection to the RTCs lack of
jurisdiction, i.e., during the trial stage where no decision had as yet been rendered,
must less one unfavorable to them.
Lastly, he asserts that it is too late in the day for petitioners to question the jurisdiction
of the RTC since they are estopped from invoking this ground. He contends that after
actively taking part in the trial proceedings and presenting a witness to seek
exoneration, it would be unfair and legally improper for petitioners to seek the
dismissal of the case.
At any rate, they argue that when the jurisdictional flaw is evident from the record of
the case, the court may, even without the urgings of the parties, take judicial notice of
such fact, and thereupon dismiss the case motu proprio.Thus, even if lack of
jurisdiction was not initially raised in a motion to dismiss or in the answer, no waiver
may be imputed to them.
Private respondent, on the other hand, submits that in an action for recovery of
damages arising from a tortious act, the claim of moral damages is not merely an
incidental or consequential claim but must be considered in the amount of demand
which will determine the courts jurisdiction. He argues that the position taken by
petitioners is a misreading of paragraph 2 of Administrative Circular No. 09-94. The
clear and explicit language of said circular leaves no room for doubt; hence, needs no
interpretation.
He further submits that petitioners reliance on Movers-Baseco Integrated Port
Services, Inc. is misplaced since that case is for recovery of the value of vehicle and
unpaid rentals on the lease of the same. He contends that Section 18, paragraph 8
of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691, upon which
petitioners anchor their stand, refers to all the demands involving collection of sums of
money based on obligations arising from contract, express or implied, where the
claim for damages is just incidental thereto and it does not apply to actions for
damages based on obligations arising from quasi-delict where the claim for damages
of whatever kind is the main action.
Private respondent also contends that, being incapable of pecuniary computation, the
amount of moral damages that he may be awarded depends on the sound discretion
of the trial court, not restrained by the limitation of the jurisdictional amount. Should
the Court follow petitioners line of reasoning, private respondent argues that it will
result in an absurd situation where he can only be awarded moral damages of not
more than P200,000.00 although he deserves more than this amount, taking into
consideration his physical suffering, as well as social and financial standing, simply
At the outset, it is necessary to stress that generally a direct recourse to this Court is
highly improper, for it violates the established policy of strict observance of the judicial
hierarchy of courts. Although this Court, the RTCs and the Court of Appeals (CA)
have concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition,mandamus, quo
warranto, habeas corpus and injunction, such concurrence does not give the
petitioner unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum. This Court is a court of last
resort, and must so remain if it is to satisfactorily perform the functions assigned to it
by the Constitution and immemorial tradition.13
Thus, this Court, as a rule, will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress
desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts, and exceptional and compelling
circumstances, such as cases of national interest and of serious implications, justify
the availment of the extraordinary remedy of writ of certiorari, calling for the exercise
of its primary jurisdiction.14 Such exceptional and compelling circumstances were
present in the following cases: (a) Chavez vs. Romulo15 on the citizens right to bear
arms; (b) Government of the United States of America vs. Purganan 16 on bail in
extradition proceedings; (c) Commission on Elections vs. Quijano-Padilla17 on a
government contract on the modernization and computerization of the voters
registration list; (d) Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB vs. Zamora[18] on the status and
existence of a public office; and (e) Fortich vs. Corona19 on the so-called "Win-Win
Resolution" of the Office of the President which modified the approval of the
conversion to agro-industrial area of a 144-hectare land.
Be that as it may, the judicial hierarchy of courts is not an iron-clad rule. It generally
applies to cases involving warring factual allegations. For this reason, litigants are
required to repair to the trial courts at the first instance to determine the truth or falsity
of these contending allegations on the basis of the evidence of the parties. Cases
which depend on disputed facts for decision cannot be brought immediately before
appellate courts as they are not triers of facts.20 Therefore, a strict application of the
rule of hierarchy of courts is not necessary when the cases brought before the
appellate courts do not involve factual but legal questions.
that the party to whom it was made is ignorant of the truth of the matter (De Castro
vs. Gineta, 27 SCRA 623). The filing of an action or suit in a court that does not
possess jurisdiction to entertain the same may not be presumed to be deliberate and
intended to secure a ruling which could later be annulled if not favorable to the party
who filed such suit or proceeding. Instituting such an action is not a one-sided affair. It
can just as well be prejudicial to the one who file the action or suit in the event that he
obtains a favorable judgment therein which could also be attacked for having been
rendered without jurisdiction. The determination of the correct jurisdiction of a court is
not a simple matter. It can raise highly debatable issues of such importance that the
highest tribunal of the land is given the exclusive appellate jurisdiction to entertain the
same. The point simply is that when a party commits error in filing his suit or
proceeding in a court that lacks jurisdiction to take cognizance of the same, such act
may not at once be deemed sufficient basis of estoppel. It could have been the result
of an honest mistake or of divergent interpretations of doubtful legal provisions. If any
fault is to be imputed to a party taking such course of action, part of the blame should
be placed on the court which shall entertain the suit, thereby lulling the parties into
believing that they pursued their remedies in the correct forum. Under the rules, it is
the duty of the court to dismiss an action "whenever it appears that court has no
jurisdiction over the subject matter." (Section 2, Rule 9, Rules of Court) Should the
Court render a judgment without jurisdiction, such judgment may be impeached or
annulled for lack of jurisdiction (Sec. 30, Rule 132, Ibid), within ten (10) years from the
finality of the same (Art. 1144, par. 3, Civil Code).24
In the present case, no judgment has yet been rendered by the RTC. 25 As a matter of
fact, as soon as the petitioners discovered the alleged jurisdictional defect, they did
not fail or neglect to file the appropriate motion to dismiss. Hence, finding the pivotal
element of laches to be absent, the Sibonghanoy doctrine does not control the
present controversy. Instead, the general rule that the question of jurisdiction of a
court may be raised at any stage of the proceedings must apply. Therefore,
petitioners are not estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the RTC.
In any event, the petition for certiorari is bereft of merit.
Section 1 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7691, which took effect on April 15, 1994,
provides inter alia that where the amount of the demand in civil cases
exceeds P100,000.00,26 exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorneys
fees, litigation expenses, and costs, the exclusive jurisdiction thereof is lodged with in
the RTC. Under Section 3 of the same law, where the amount of the demand in the
complaint does not exceed P100,000.00, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever
kind, attorneys fees, litigation expenses, and costs, the exclusive jurisdiction over the
same is vested in the Metropolitan Trial Court, MTC and Municipal Circuit Trial Court.
xxxx
MEDICAL
PLAZA
MAKATI
CONDOMINIUM
vs.
ROBERT H. CULLEN, Respondent.
CORPORATION, Petitioner,
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing
the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision 1 dated July 10, 2007 and Resolution 2 dated
January 25, 2008 in CA-G.R. CV No. 86614. The assailed decision reversed and set
aside the September 9, 2005 Order3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati,
Branch 58 in Civil Case No. 03-1018; while the assailed resolution denied the
separate motions for reconsideration filed by petitioner Medical Plaza Makati
Condominium Corporation (MPMCC) and Meridien Land Holding, Inc. (MLHI).
The factual and procedural antecedents are as follows:
Respondent Robert H. Cullen purchased from MLHI condominium Unit No. 1201 of
the Medical Plaza Makati covered by Condominium Certificate of Title No. 45808 of
the Register of Deeds of Makati. Said title was later cancelled and Condominium
Certificate of Title No. 64218 was issued in the name of respondent.
6. Thereafter, plaintiff occupied the said condominium unit no. 1201 and
religiously paid all the corresponding monthly contributions/association dues
and other assessments imposed on the same. For the years 2000 and 2001,
plaintiff served as President and Director of the Medical Plaza Makati
Condominium Corporation;
7. Nonetheless, on September 19, 2002, plaintiff was shocked/surprised to
receive a letter from the incumbent Corporate Secretary of the defendant
Medical Plaza Makati, demanding payment of alleged unpaid association
dues and assessments arising from plaintiffs condominium unit no. 1201.
The said letter further stressed that plaintiff is considered a delinquent
member of the defendant Medical Plaza Makati.
x x x;
8. As a consequence, plaintiff was not allowed to file his certificate of
candidacy as director. Being considered a delinquent, plaintiff was also
barred from exercising his right to vote in the election of new members of the
Board of Directors x x x;
9. x x x Again, prior to the said election date, x x x counsel for the defendant
[MPMCC] sent a demand letter to plaintiff, anent the said delinquency,
explaining that the said unpaid amount is a carry-over from the obligation of
defendant Meridien. x x x;
On September 9, 2005, the RTC rendered a Decision granting petitioners and MLHIs
motions to dismiss and, consequently, dismissing respondents complaint.
On appeal, the CA reversed and set aside the trial courts decision and remanded the
case to the RTC for further proceedings. Contrary to the RTC conclusion, the CA held
that the controversy is an ordinary civil action for damages which falls within the
jurisdiction of regular courts.14 It explained that the case hinged on petitioners refusal
to confirm MLHIs claim that the subject obligation had already been settled as early
The trial court agreed with MLHI that the action for specific performance filed by
respondent clearly falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the HLURB.12 As to
petitioner, the court held that the complaint states no cause of action, considering that
respondents obligation had already been settled by MLHI. It, likewise, ruled that the
issues raised are intra-corporate between the corporation and member.13
Based on the allegations made by respondent in his complaint, does the controversy
involve intra-corporate issues as would fall within the jurisdiction of the RTC sitting as
a special commercial court or an ordinary action for damages within the jurisdiction of
regular courts?
In determining whether a dispute constitutes an intra-corporate controversy, the Court
uses two tests, namely, the relationship test and the nature of the controversy test. 21
An intra-corporate controversy is one which pertains to any of the following
relationships: (1) between the corporation, partnership or association and the public;
(2) between the corporation, partnership or association and the State insofar as its
franchise, permit or license to operate is concerned; (3) between the corporation,
partnership or association and its stockholders, partners, members or officers; and (4)
among the stockholders, partners or associates themselves. 22 Thus, under the
relationship test, the existence of any of the above intra-corporate relations makes the
case intra-corporate.23
Under the nature of the controversy test, "the controversy must not only be rooted in
the existence of an intra-corporate relationship, but must as well pertain to the
enforcement of the parties correlative rights and obligations under the Corporation
Code and the internal and intra-corporate regulatory rules of the corporation." 24 In
other words, jurisdiction should be determined by considering both the relationship of
the parties as well as the nature of the question involved.25
Applying the two tests, we find and so hold that the case involves intra-corporate
controversy. It obviously arose from the intra-corporate relations between the parties,
and the questions involved pertain to their rights and obligations under the
Corporation Code and matters relating to the regulation of the corporation.26
Admittedly, petitioner is a condominium corporation duly organized and existing under
Philippine laws, charged with the management of the Medical Plaza Makati.
Respondent, on the other hand, is the registered owner of Unit No. 1201 and is thus a
stockholder/member of the condominium corporation. Clearly, there is an intracorporate relationship between the corporation and a stockholder/member.
The nature of the action is determined by the body rather than the title of the
complaint.1wphi1 Though denominated as an action for damages, an examination of
the allegations made by respondent in his complaint shows that the case principally
dwells on the propriety of the assessment made by petitioner against respondent as
well as the validity of petitioners act in preventing respondent from participating in the
election of the corporations Board of Directors. Respondent contested the alleged
unpaid dues and assessments demanded by petitioner.
have been filed not with the regular court but with the branch of the RTC designated
as a special commercial court. Considering that the RTC of Makati City, Branch 58
was not designated as a special commercial court, it was not vested with jurisdiction
over cases previously cognizable by the SEC. 31 The CA, therefore, gravely erred in
remanding the case to the RTC for further proceedings.
Indeed, Republic Act (RA) No. 9904, or the Magna Carta for Homeowners and
Homeowners Associations, approved on January 7, 2010 and became effective on
July 10, 2010, empowers the HLURB to hear and decide inter-association and/or
intra-association controversies or conflicts concerning homeowners associations.
However, we cannot apply the same in the present case as it involves a controversy
between a condominium unit owner and a condominium corporation. While the term
association as defined in the law covers homeowners associations of other
residential real property which is broad enough to cover a condominium corporation, it
does not seem to be the legislative intent. A thorough review of the deliberations of
the bicameral conference committee would show that the lawmakers did not intend to
extend the coverage of the law to such kind of association. We quote hereunder the
pertinent portion of the Bicameral Conference Committees deliberation, to wit:
THE CHAIRMAN (SEN. ZUBIRI). Lets go back, Mr. Chair, very quickly on
homeowners.
THE ACTING CHAIRMAN (REP. ZIALCITA). Ang sa akin lang, I think our views are
similar, Your Honor, Senator Zubiri, the entry of the condominium units might just
complicate the whole matters. So wed like to put it on record that were very much
concerned about the plight of the Condominium Unit Homeowners Association. But
this could very well be addressed on a separate bill that Im willing to co-sponsor with
the distinguished Senator Zubiri, to address in the Condominium Act of the
Philippines, rather than address it here because it might just create a red herring into
the entire thing and it will just complicate matters, hindi ba?
THE CHAIRMAN (SEN. ZUBIRI). I also agree with you although I sympathize with
them---although we sympathize with them and we feel that many times their rights
have been also violated by abusive condominium corporations. However, there are
certain things that we have to reconcile. There are certain issues that we have to
reconcile with this version.
In the Condominium Code, for example, they just raised a very peculiar situation
under the Condominium Code --- Condominium Corporation Act. Its five years the
proxy, whereas here, its three years. So there would already be violation or there will
be already a problem with their version and our version. Sino ang matutupad doon?
Will it be our version or their version?
MR. JALANDONI. It will become complicated. There will be a lot of conflict of laws
between the two laws.
THE ACTING CHAIRMAN (REP. ZIALCITA). Kaya nga eh. At saka, I dont know. I
think the --- mayroon naman silang protection sa ano eh, di ba? Buyers decree doon
sa Condominium Act. Im sure there are provisions there eh. Huwag na lang, huwag
na lang.
MR. JALANDONI. Mr. Chairman, I think it would be best if your previous comments
that youd be supporting an amendment.1wphi1 I think that would be --- Well, that
would be the best course of action with all due respect.
Atty. Dayrit.
MR. DAYRIT.
Yes I agree with you. There are many, I think, practices in their provisions in the
Condominium Law that may be conflicting with this version of ours.
For instance, in the case of, lets say, the condominium, the so-called common areas
and/or maybe so called open spaces that they may have, especially common areas,
they are usually owned by the condominium corporation. Unlike a subdivision where
the open spaces and/or the common areas are not necessarily owned by the
association. Because sometimes --- generally these are donated to the municipality or
to the city. And it is only when the city or municipality gives the approval or the
conformity that this is donated to the homeowners association. But generally, under
PD [Presidential Decree] 957, its donated. In the Condominium Corporation, hindi.
Lahat ng mga open spaces and common areas like corridors, the function rooms and
everything, are owned by the corporation. So thats one main issue that can be
conflicting.
THE CHAIRMAN (SEN. ZUBIRI). Ill just ask for a one-minute suspension so we can
talk.
THE ACTING CHAIRMAN (REP. ZIALCITA). Unless you want to put a catchall phrase
like what we did in the Senior Citizens Act. Something like, to the extent --- paano ba
iyon? To the extent that it is practicable and applicable, the rights and benefits of the
homeowners, are hereby extended to the --- mayroon kaming ginamit na phrase
eh...to the extent that it be practicable and applicable to the unit homeoweners, is
hereby extended, something like that. Its a catchall phrase. But then again, it might
create a...
THE ACTING CHAIRMAN (REP. ZIALCITA). Yeah. Okay. Thank you. So iyon na lang
final proposal naming yung catchall phrase, "With respect to the..."32
xxxx
THE CHAIRMAN (SEN. ZUBIRI). xxx And so, what is their final decision on the
definition of homeowners?
THE ACTING CHAIRMAN (REP. ZIALCITA).
We stick to the original, Mr. Chairman. Well just open up a whole can of worms and a
whole new ball game will come into play. Besides, I am not authorized, neither are
you, by our counterparts to include the condominium owners.
THE CHAIRMAN (SEN. ZUBIRI).
Basically that is correct. We are not authorized by the Senate nor because we have
discussed this lengthily on the floor, actually, several months on the floor. And we
dont have the authority as well for other Bicam members to add a provision to include
a separate entity that has already their legal or their established Republic Act tackling
on that particular issue. But we just like to put on record, we sympathize with the
plight of our friends in the condominium associations and we will just guarantee them
that we will work on an amendment to the Condominium Corporation Code. So with
that we skipped, that is correct, we have to go back to homeowners association
definition, Your Honor, because we had skipped it altogether. So just quickly going
back to Page 7 because there are amendments to the definition of homeowners. If it
is alright with the House Panel, adopt the opening phrase of Subsection 7 of the
Senate version as opening phrase of Subsection 10 of the reconciled version.
MANOLO
P.
SAMSON, petitioner,
vs.
HON. REYNALDO B. DAWAY, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial
Court of Quezon City, Branch 90, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and
CATERPILLAR, INC., respondents.
SO ORDERED.
DECISION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
Assailed in this petition for certiorari is the March 26, 2003 Order1 of the Regional
Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 90, which denied petitioners (1) motion to quash
the information; and (2) motion for reconsideration of the August 9, 2002 Order
denying his motion to suspend the arraignment and other proceedings in Criminal
Case Nos. Q-02-108043-44. Petitioner also questioned its August 5, 2003
Order2 which denied his motion for reconsideration.
The issues posed for resolution are (1) Which court has jurisdiction over criminal
and civil cases for violation of intellectual property rights? (2) Did the respondent
Judge gravely abuse his discretion in refusing to suspend the arraignment and other
proceedings in Criminal Case Nos. Q-02-108043-44 on the ground of (a) the
existence of a prejudicial question; and (b) the pendency of a petition for review with
the Secretary of Justice on the finding of probable cause for unfair competition?
Under Section 170 of R.A. No. 8293, which took effect on January 1, 1998, the
criminal penalty for infringement of registered marks, unfair competition, false
designation of origin and false description or representation, is imprisonment from 2
to 5 years and a fine ranging from Fifty Thousand Pesos to Two Hundred Thousand
Pesos, to wit:
SEC. 170. Penalties. Independent of the civil and administrative sanctions
imposed by law, a criminal penalty of imprisonment from two (2) years to five
(5) years and a fine ranging from Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) to Two
hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00), shall be imposed on any person
who is found guilty of committing any of the acts mentioned in Section 155
[Infringement], Section 168 [Unfair Competition] and Section 169.1 [False
Designation of Origin and False Description or Representation].
Corollarily, Section 163 of the same Code states that actions (including criminal and
civil) under Sections 150, 155, 164, 166, 167, 168 and 169 shall be brought before
the proper courts with appropriate jurisdiction under existing laws, thus
SEC. 163. Jurisdiction of Court. All actions under Sections 150, 155, 164
and 166 to 169 shall be brought before the proper courts with appropriate
jurisdiction under existing laws. (Emphasis supplied)
The existing law referred to in the foregoing provision is Section 27 of R.A. No. 166
(The Trademark Law) which provides that jurisdiction over cases for infringement of
registered marks, unfair competition, false designation of origin and false description
or representation, is lodged with the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court)
SEC. 27. Jurisdiction of Court of First Instance. All actions under this
Chapter [V Infringement] and Chapters VI [Unfair Competition] and VII
[False Designation of Origin and False Description or Representation],
hereof shall be brought before the Court of First Instance.
We find no merit in the claim of petitioner that R.A. No. 166 was expressly repealed
by R.A. No. 8293. The repealing clause of R.A. No. 8293, reads
SEC. 239. Repeals. 239.1. All Acts and parts of Acts inconsistent
herewith, more particularly Republic Act No. 165, as amended; Republic
Act No. 166, as amended; and Articles 188 and 189 of the Revised Penal
Anent the second issue, petitioner failed to substantiate his claim that there was a
prejudicial question. In his petition, he prayed for the reversal of the March 26, 2003
order which sustained the denial of his motion to suspend arraignment and other
proceedings in Criminal Case Nos. Q-02-108043-44. For unknown reasons, however,
he made no discussion in support of said prayer in his petition and reply to comment.
Neither did he attach a copy of the complaint in Civil Case No. Q-00-41446 nor quote
the pertinent portion thereof to prove the existence of a prejudicial question.
At any rate, there is no prejudicial question if the civil and the criminal action can,
according to law, proceed independently of each other.11 Under Rule 111, Section 3
of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, in the cases provided in Articles 32, 33,
34 and 2176 of the Civil Code, the independent civil action may be brought by the
offended party. It shall proceed independently of the criminal action and shall require
only a preponderance of evidence.
In the case at bar, the common element in the acts constituting unfair competition
under Section 168 of R.A. No. 8293 is fraud.12 Pursuant to Article 33 of the Civil
Code, in cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries, a civil action for damages,
entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured
party. Hence, Civil Case No. Q-00-41446, which as admitted13 by private respondent
also relate to unfair competition, is an independent civil action under Article 33 of the
Civil Code. As such, it will not operate as a prejudicial question that will justify the
suspension of the criminal cases at bar.
Section 11 (c), Rule 116 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides
SEC. 11. Suspension of arraignment. Upon motion by the proper party, the
arraignment shall be suspended in the following cases
xxxxxxxxx
(c) A petition for review of the resolution of the prosecutor is pending at
either the Department of Justice, or the Office of the President; Provided,
that the period of suspension shall not exceed sixty (60) days counted from
the filing of the petition with the reviewing office.
While the pendency of a petition for review is a ground for suspension of the
arraignment, the aforecited provision limits the deferment of the arraignment to a
period of 60 days reckoned from the filing of the petition with the reviewing office. It
follows, therefore, that after the expiration of said period, the trial court is bound to
arraign the accused or to deny the motion to defer arraignment.
In the instant case, petitioner failed to establish that respondent Judge abused his
discretion in denying his motion to suspend. His pleadings and annexes submitted
before the Court do not show the date of filing of the petition for review with the
Secretary of Justice.14 Moreover, the Order dated August 9, 2002 denying his motion
SO ORDERED.
DECISION
CORONA, J.:
This is a petition to review, under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the July 5, 2002
resolution1 of the Court of Appeals, Sixteenth Division, in CA G.R. SP No. 70501
Court. This jurisdiction finds its procedural expression in Sec. 1, Rule 102 of
the Rules of Court.
WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the petition for habeas corpus on the
grounds that: a) this Court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
petition; and b) the petition is not sufficient in substance.
Petitioner, an American, and respondent, a Filipino, were married on August 28, 1998
in the Catholic Evangelical Church at United Nations Avenue, Manila. A year later,
respondent gave birth to a baby girl whom they named Sequeira Jennifer Delle
Francisco Thornton.
However, after three years, respondent grew restless and bored as a plain housewife.
She wanted to return to her old job as a "guest relations officer" in a nightclub, with
the freedom to go out with her friends. In fact, whenever petitioner was out of the
country, respondent was also often out with her friends, leaving her daughter in the
care of the househelp.
Petitioner admonished respondent about her irresponsibility but she continued her
carefree ways. On December 7, 2001, respondent left the family home with her
daughter Sequiera without notifying her husband. She told the servants that she was
bringing Sequiera to Purok Marikit, Sta. Clara, Lamitan, Basilan Province.
Petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus in the designated Family Court in Makati
City but this was dismissed, presumably because of the allegation that the child was
in Basilan. Petitioner then went to Basilan to ascertain the whereabouts of respondent
and their daughter. However, he did not find them there and the barangay office of
Sta. Clara, Lamitan, Basilan, issued a certification 3 that respondent was no longer
residing there.
Petitioner gave up his search when he got hold of respondents cellular phone bills
showing calls from different places such as Cavite, Nueva Ecija, Metro Manila and
other provinces. Petitioner then filed another petition for habeas corpus, this time in
the Court of Appeals which could issue a writ of habeas corpus enforceable in the
entire country.
However, the petition was denied by the Court of Appeals on the ground that it did not
have jurisdiction over the case. It ruled that since RA 8369 (The Family Courts Act of
1997) gave family courts exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for habeas
corpus, it impliedly repealed RA 7902 (An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Court
of Appeals) and Batas Pambansa 129 (The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980):
Under Sec. 9 (1), BP 129 (1981) the Intermediate Appellate Court (now
Court of Appeals) has jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus whether or
not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. This conferment of jurisdiction was restated in Sec. 1, RA 7902 (1995), an act expanding the jurisdiction of this
xxx
xxx
We disagree with the CAs reasoning because it will result in an iniquitous situation,
leaving individuals like petitioner without legal recourse in obtaining custody of their
children. Individuals who do not know the whereabouts of minors they are looking for
would be helpless since they cannot seek redress from family courts whose writs are
enforceable only in their respective territorial jurisdictions. Thus, if a minor is being
transferred from one place to another, which seems to be the case here, the petitioner
in a habeas corpus case will be left without legal remedy. This lack of recourse could
not have been the intention of the lawmakers when they passed the Family Courts
Act of 1997. As observed by the Solicitor General:
While Floresca involved a cause of action different from the case at bar. it
supports petitioners submission that the word "exclusive" in the Family
Courts Act of 1997 may not connote automatic foreclosure of the jurisdiction
of other courts over habeas corpus cases involving minors. In the same
manner that the remedies in the Floresca case were selective, the
jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals and Family Court in the case at bar is
concurrent. The Family Court can issue writs of habeas corpus enforceable
only within its territorial jurisdiction. On the other hand, in cases where the
territorial jurisdiction for the enforcement of the writ cannot be determined
with certainty, the Court of Appeals can issue the same writ enforceable
throughout the Philippines, as provided in Sec. 2, Rule 102 of the Revised
Rules of Court, thus:
Under the Family Courts Act of 1997, the avowed policy of the State is to
"protect the rights and promote the welfare of children." The creation of the
Family Court is geared towards addressing three major issues regarding
childrens welfare cases, as expressed by the legislators during the
deliberations for the law. The legislative intent behind giving Family Courts
exclusive and original jurisdiction over such cases was to avoid further
clogging of regular court dockets, ensure greater sensitivity and
specialization in view of the nature of the case and the parties, as well as to
guarantee that the privacy of the children party to the case remains
protected.
The primordial consideration is the welfare and best interests of the child. We rule
therefore that RA 8369 did not divest the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of
their jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases involving the custody of minors. Again, to
quote the Solicitor General:
In ruling that the Commissioners "exclusive" jurisdiction did not foreclose resort to the
regular courts for damages, this Court, in the same Floresca case, said that it was
merely applying and giving effect to the constitutional guarantees of social justice in
the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions and implemented by the Civil Code. It also applied
the well-established rule that what is controlling is the spirit and intent, not the letter,
of the law:
To allow the Court of Appeals to exercise jurisdiction over the petition for
habeas corpus involving a minor child whose whereabouts are uncertain and
transient will not result in one of the situations that the legislature seeks to
avoid. First, the welfare of the child is paramount. Second, the ex parte
nature of habeas corpus proceedings will not result in disruption of the
childs privacy and emotional well-being; whereas to deprive the appellate
"Idolatrous reverence" for the law sacrifices the human being. The spirit of
the law insures mans survival and ennobles him. In the words of
Shakespeare, "the letter of the law killeth; its spirit giveth life."
xxx
xxx
It is therefore patent that giving effect to the social justice guarantees of the
Constitution, as implemented by the provisions of the New Civil Code, is not
an exercise of the power of law-making, but is rendering obedience to the
mandates of the fundamental law and the implementing legislation
aforementioned.
Language is rarely so free from ambiguity as to be incapable of being used in more
than one sense. Sometimes, what the legislature actually had in mind is not
accurately reflected in the language of a statute, and its literal interpretation may
render it meaningless, lead to absurdity, injustice or contradiction. 7 In the case at bar,
a literal interpretation of the word "exclusive" will result in grave injustice and negate
the policy "to protect the rights and promote the welfare of children" 8 under the
Constitution and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. This
mandate must prevail over legal technicalities and serve as the guiding principle in
construing the provisions of RA 8369.
Moreover, settled is the rule in statutory construction that implied repeals are not
favored:
The two laws must be absolutely incompatible, and a clear finding thereof
must surface, before the inference of implied repeal may be drawn. The rule
is expressed in the maxim, interpretare et concordare leqibus est optimus
interpretendi, i.e., every statute must be so interpreted and brought into
accord with other laws as to form a uniform system of jurisprudence. The
fundament is that the legislature should be presumed to have known the
existing laws on the subject and not have enacted conflicting statutes.
Hence, all doubts must be resolved against any implied repeal, and all
efforts should be exerted in order to harmonize and give effect to all laws on
the subject."9
The provisions of RA 8369 reveal no manifest intent to revoke the jurisdiction of the
Court of Appeals and Supreme Court to issue writs of habeas corpus relating to the
custody of minors. Further, it cannot be said that the provisions of RA 8369, RA 7092
and BP 129 are absolutely incompatible since RA 8369 does not prohibit the Court of
Appeals and the Supreme Court from issuing writs of habeas corpus in cases
involving the custody of minors. Thus, the provisions of RA 8369 must be read in
harmony with RA 7029 and BP 129 that family courts have concurrent jurisdiction
with the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court in petitions for habeas corpus
where the custody of minors is at issue.
In any case, whatever uncertainty there was has been settled with the adoption of
A.M. No. 03-03-04-SC Re: Rule on Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in
Relation to Custody of Minors. Section 20 of the rule provides that:
Section 20. Petition for writ of habeas corpus.- A verified petition for a writ
of habeas corpus involving custody of minors shall be filed with the Family
Court. The writ shall be enforceable within its judicial region to which the
Family Court belongs.
xxx
xxx
xxx
The petition may likewise be filed with the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals,
or with any of its members and, if so granted, the writ shall be enforceable
anywhere in the Philippines. The writ may be made returnable to a Family
Court or to any regular court within the region where the petitioner resides or
where the minor may be found for hearing and decision on the merits.
(Emphasis Ours)
From the foregoing, there is no doubt that the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court
have concurrent jurisdiction with family courts in habeas corpus cases where the
custody of minors is involved.
One final note. Requiring the serving officer to search for the child all over the country
is not an unreasonable availment of a remedy which the Court of Appeals cited as a
ground for dismissing the petition. As explained by the Solicitor General:10
That the serving officer will have to "search for the child all over the country"
does not represent an insurmountable or unreasonable obstacle, since such
a task is no more different from or difficult than the duty of the peace officer
in effecting a warrant of arrest, since the latter is likewise enforceable
anywhere within the Philippines.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The petition for habeas corpus in
CA-G.R.-SP-No. 70501 is hereby REINSTATED and REMANDED to the Court of
Appeals, Sixteenth Division.
SO ORDERED.
FELIPE
N.
vs.
FRANCISCA R. MADRIAN, Respondent.
MADRIAN, Petitioner,
DECISION
CORONA, J.:
When a family breaks up, the children are always the victims. The ensuing battle for
custody of the minor children is not only a thorny issue but also a highly sensitive and
heart-rending affair. Such is the case here. Even the usually technical subject of
jurisdiction became emotionally charged.
impaired his mental faculties, causing him to commit acts of violence against her and
their children. The situation was aggravated by the fact that their home was adjacent
to that of her in-laws who frequently meddled in their personal problems.4
Their union was blessed with three sons and a daughter: Ronnick, born on January
30, 1994; Phillip, born on November 19, 1996; Francis Angelo, born on May 12, 1998
and Krizia Ann, born on December 12, 2000.
On October 21, 2002, the Court of Appeals 5 rendered a decision6 asserting its
authority to take cognizance of the petition and ruling that, under Article 213 of the
Family Code, respondent was entitled to the custody of Phillip and Francis Angelo
who were at that time aged six and four, respectively, subject to the visitation rights of
petitioner. With respect to Ronnick who was then eight years old, the court ruled that
his custody should be determined by the proper family court in a special proceeding
on custody of minors under Rule 99 of the Rules of Court.
After a bitter quarrel on May 18, 2002, petitioner allegedly left their conjugal abode
and took their three sons with him to Ligao City, Albay and subsequently to Sta. Rosa,
Laguna. Respondent sought the help of her parents and parents-in-law to patch
things up between her and petitioner to no avail. She then brought the matter to
theLupong Tagapamayapa in their barangay but this too proved futile.
Thus respondent filed a petition for habeas corpus of Ronnick, Phillip and Francis
Angelo in the Court of Appeals, alleging that petitioners act of leaving the conjugal
dwelling and going to Albay and then to Laguna disrupted the education of their
children and deprived them of their mothers care. She prayed that petitioner be
ordered to appear and produce their sons before the court and to explain why they
should not be returned to her custody.
Petitioner and respondent appeared at the hearing on September 17, 2002. They
initially agreed that petitioner would return the custody of their three sons to
respondent. Petitioner, however, had a change of heart 1 and decided to file a
memorandum.
On September 3, 2002, petitioner filed his memorandum2 alleging that respondent
was unfit to take custody of their three sons because she was habitually drunk,
frequently went home late at night or in the wee hours of the morning, spent much of
her time at a beer house and neglected her duties as a mother. He claimed that, after
their squabble on May 18, 2002, it was respondent who left, taking their daughter with
her. It was only then that he went to Sta. Rosa, Laguna where he worked as a tricycle
driver. He submitted a certification from the principal of the Dila Elementary School in
Sta. Rosa, Laguna that Ronnick and Phillip were enrolled there. He also questioned
the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals claiming that under Section 5(b) of RA 8369
(otherwise known as the "Family Courts Act of 1997") family courts have exclusive
original jurisdiction to hear and decide the petition for habeas corpus filed by
respondent.3
For her part, respondent averred that she did not leave their home on May 18, 2002
but was driven out by petitioner. She alleged that it was petitioner who was an
alcoholic, gambler and drug addict. Petitioners alcoholism and drug addiction
Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the Court of Appeals decision but it was
denied. Hence, this recourse.
Petitioner challenges the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals over the petition
for habeas corpus and insists that jurisdiction over the case is lodged in the family
courts under RA 8369. He invokes Section 5(b) of RA 8369:
Section 5. Jurisdiction of Family Courts. The Family Courts shall have exclusive
original jurisdiction to hear and decide the following cases:
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
Petitioner is wrong.
In Thornton v. Thornton,7 this Court resolved the issue of the Court of Appeals
jurisdiction to issue writs ofhabeas corpus in cases involving custody of minors in the
light of the provision in RA 8369 giving family courts exclusive original jurisdiction over
such petitions:
The Court of Appeals should take cognizance of the case since there is nothing
in RA 8369 that revoked its jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas
corpus involving the custody of minors.
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
The provisions of RA 8369 reveal no manifest intent to revoke the jurisdiction of the
Court of Appeals and Supreme Court to issue writs of habeas corpus relating to the
custody of minors. Further, it cannot be said that the provisions of RA 8369, RA 7092
[An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals] and BP 129 [The Judiciary
Reorganization Act of 1980] are absolutely incompatible since RA 8369 does not
prohibit the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court from issuing writs of habeas
corpus in cases involving the custody of minors. Thus, the provisions of RA 8369
must be read in harmony with RA 7029 and BP 129 that family courts have
concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court in
petitions for habeas corpuswhere the custody of minors is at issue.8 (emphases
supplied)
The jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals over petitions for habeas corpus was further
affirmed by A.M. No. 03-03-04-SC (April 22, 2004) in Re: Rule on Custody of Minors
and Writ of Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of Minors:
In any case, whatever uncertainty there was has been settled with the adoption
of A.M. No. 03-03-04-SC Re: Rule on Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas
Corpus in Relation to Custody of Minors. Section 20 of the rule provides that:
Section 20. Petition for writ of habeas corpus. A verified petition for a writ of habeas
corpus involving custody of minors shall be filed with the Family Court. The writ shall
be enforceable within its judicial region to which the Family Court belongs.
xxx
xxx
We note that after petitioner moved out of their Paraaque residence on May 18,
2002, he twice transferred his sons to provinces covered by different judicial regions.
This situation is what the Thornton interpretation of RA 8369s provision on jurisdiction
precisely addressed:
xxx
The petition may likewise be filed with the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or
with any of its membersand, if so granted, the writ shall be enforceable anywhere
in the Philippines. The writ may be made returnable to a Family Court or to any
regular court within the region where the petitioner resides or where the minor may be
found for hearing and decision on the merits.
From the foregoing, there is no doubt that the Court of Appeals and Supreme
Court have concurrent jurisdiction with family courts in habeas corpus cases
where the custody of minors is involved.9(emphases supplied)1avvphi1
[The reasoning that by giving family courts exclusive jurisdiction over habeas
corpus cases, the lawmakers intended them to be the sole courts which can issue
writs of habeas corpus] will result in an iniquitous situation, leaving individuals like
[respondent] without legal recourse in obtaining custody of their children. Individuals
who do not know the whereabouts of minors they are looking for would be helpless
since they cannot seek redress from family courts whose writs are enforceable only in
their respective territorial jurisdictions. Thus, if a minor is being transferred from
one place to another, which seems to be the case here, the petitioner in
a habeas corpus case will be left without legal remedy. This lack of recourse
could not have been the intention of the lawmakers when they passed [RA
8369].10
Moreover, a careful reading of Section 5(b) of RA 8369 reveals that family courts are
vested with original exclusive jurisdiction in custody cases, not in habeas
corpus cases. Writs of habeas corpus which may be issued exclusively by family
courts under Section 5(b) of RA 8369 pertain to the ancillary remedy that may be
availed of in conjunction with a petition for custody of minors under Rule 99 of the
Rules of Court. In other words, the issuance of the writ is merely ancillary to the
custody case pending before the family court. The writ must be issued by the same
court to avoid splitting of jurisdiction, conflicting decisions, interference by a co-equal
court and judicial instability.
The rule therefore is: when by law jurisdiction is conferred on a court or judicial officer,
all auxiliary writs, processes and other means necessary to carry it into effect may be
employed by such court or officer.11 Once a court acquires jurisdiction over the subject
matter of a case, it does so to the exclusion of all other courts, including related
incidents and ancillary matters.
Accordingly, the petition is hereby DENIED.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Yokohama, Japan. The vessel departed for Long Beach California, passing
by Hawaii in the middle of the voyage. At the time of embarkation, CAPT.
TOLOSA was allegedly shown to be in good health.
EVELYN
TOLOSA, petitioner,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, QWANA KAIUN (through its
resident-agent, FUMIO NAKAGAWA), ASIA BULK TRANSPORT PHILS. INC.,
PEDRO GARATE and MARIO ASIS, respondents.
PANGANIBAN, J.:
As a rule, labor arbiters and the National Labor Relations Commission have no power
or authority to grant reliefs from claims that do not arise from employer-employee
relations. They have no jurisdiction over torts that have no reasonable causal
connection to any of the claims provided for in the Labor Code, other labor statutes,
or collective bargaining agreements.
The Case
The Petition for Review before us assails the April 18, 2001 Decision 1 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-GR SP No. 57660, as well as the April 17, 2001 CA
Resolution2 denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. The dispositive portion of
the challenged Decision reads as follows:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition for certiorari is
hereby DENIED and accordingly DISMISSED, without prejudice to the right
of herein petitioner to file a suit before the proper court, if she so desires. No
pronouncement as to costs."3
The Facts
The appellate court narrated the facts of the case in this manner:
"Evelyn Tolosa (hereafter EVELYN), was the widow of Captain Virgilio Tolosa
(hereafter CAPT. TOLOSA) who was hired by Qwana-Kaiun, through its
manning agent, Asia Bulk Transport Phils. Inc., (ASIA BULK for brevity), to
be the master of the Vessel named M/V Lady Dona. CAPT. TOLOSA had a
monthly compensation of US$1700, plus US$400.00 monthly overtime
allowance. His contract officially began on November 1, 1992, as supported
by his contract of employment when he assumed command of the vessel in
"On the same day, November 15, 1992, the Chief Engineer initiated the
move and contacted ASIA BULK which left CAPT. TOLOSA's fate in the
hands of Pedro Garate and Mario Asis, Second Mate of the same vessel
who was in-charge of the primary medical care of its officers and crew.
Contact with the U.S. Coast Guard in Honolulu, Hawaii (USCGHH) was
likewise initiated to seek medical advice.
"On November 17, 1992, CAPT. TOLOSA was 'losing resistance' and his
'condition was getting serious.' At 2215 GMT, a telex was sent to ASIA BULK
requesting for the immediate evacuation of CAPT. TOLOSA and thereafter
an airlift was set on November 19, 1992. However, on November 18, 1992,
at 0753 GMT, CAPT. TOLOSA was officially recorded as having breathed his
last.
"Because of the death of CAPT. TOLOSA, his wife, EVELYN, as petitioner,
filed a Complaint/Position Paper before the POEA (POEA Case No. 93-061080) against Qwana-Kaiun, thru its resident-agent, Mr. Fumio Nakagawa,
ASIA BULK, Pedro Garate and Mario Asis, as respondents.
xxx
xxx
xxx
"After considering the pleadings and evidences, on July 8, 1997, the Labor
Arbiter Vladimir P. L. Sampang, in conformity with petitioner's plea to hold
respondents solidarily liable, granted all the damages, (plus legal interest),
as prayed for by the petitioner. The dispositive portion of his Decision reads:
'WHEREFORE, premises considered, the respondents are hereby
ordered to jointly and solidarily pay complainants the following:
xxx
Sustaining the NLRC, the CA ruled that the labor commission had no jurisdiction over
the subject matter of the action filed by petitioner. Her cause did not arise from an
employer-employee relation, but from a quasi delict or tort. Further, there is no
reasonable causal connection between her suit for damages and her claim under
Article 217 (a)(4) of the Labor Code, which allows an award of damages incident to
an employer-employee relation.
Issues
xxx
xxx
xxx
"On appeal, private respondents raised before the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) the following grounds:
"I
"Whether or not the NLRC has jurisdiction over the case.
"II
(b) Labor Arbiters have jurisdiction over claims for damages arising
from employer-employee relationship (Art. 217, Section (a) (3));
After reviewing petitioner's Memorandum, we find that we are specifically being asked
to determine 1) whether the labor arbiter and the NLRC had jurisdiction over
Issue:
Petitioner argues that her cause of action is not predicated on a quasi delict or tort,
but on the failure of private respondents -- as employers of her husband (Captain
Tolosa) -- to provide him with timely, adequate and competent medical services under
Article 161 of the Labor Code:
"ART 161. Assistance of employer. -- It shall be the duty of any employer to
provide all the necessary assistance to ensure the adequate and immediate
medical and dental attendance and treatment to an injured or sick employee
in case of emergency."
Likewise, she contends that Article 217 (a) (4) 7 of the Labor Code vests labor arbiters
and the NLRC with jurisdiction to award all kinds of damages in cases arising from
employer-employee relations.
Petitioner also alleges that the "reasonable causal connection" rule should be applied
in her favor. Citing San Miguel Corporation v. Etcuban,8 she insists that a reasonable
causal connection between the claim asserted and the employer-employee relation
confers jurisdiction upon labor tribunals. She adds that she has satisfied the required
conditions: 1) the dispute arose from an employer-employee relation, considering that
the claim was for damages based on the failure of private respondents to comply with
their obligation under Article 161 of the Labor Code; and 2) the dispute can be
resolved by reference to the Labor Code, because the material issue is whether
private respondents complied with their legal obligation to provide timely, adequate
and competent medical services to guarantee Captain Tolosa's occupational safety.9
We disagree. We affirm the CA's ruling that the NLRC and the labor arbiter had no
jurisdiction over petitioner's claim for damages, because that ruling was based on a
quasi delict or tort per Article 2176 of the Civil Code.10
Time and time again, we have held that the allegations in the complaint determine the
nature of the action and, consequently, the jurisdiction of the courts. 11 After carefully
"x x x [R]espondent Asis was the medical officer of the Vessel, who failed to
regularly monitor Capt. Tolosa's condition, and who needed the USCG to
prod him to take the latter's vital signs. In fact, he failed to keep a medical
record, like a patient's card or folder, of Capt. Tolosa's illness."12
"Respondents, however, failed Capt. Tolosa because Garate never initiated
actions to save him. x x x In fact, Garate rarely checked personally on Capt.
Tolosa's condition, to wit:"13
"x x x Noticeably, the History (Annex "D") fails to mention any instance when
Garate consulted the other officers, much less Capt. Tolosa, regarding the
possibility of deviation. To save Capt. Tolosa's life was surely a just cause for
the change in course, which the other officers would have concurred in had
they been consulted by respondent Garate which he grossly neglected to
do.
"Garate's poor judgement, since he was the officer effectively in command of
the vessel, prevented him from undertaking these emergency measures, the
neglect of which resulted in Capt. Tolosa's untimely demise."14
The labor arbiter himself classified petitioner's case as "a complaint for damages,
blacklisting and watchlisting (pending inquiry) for gross negligence resulting in the
death of complainant's husband, Capt. Virgilio Tolosa."15
We stress that the case does not involve the adjudication of a labor dispute, but the
recovery of damages based on a quasi delict. The jurisdiction of labor tribunals is
limited to disputes arising from employer-employee relations, as we ruled in Georg
Grotjahn GMBH & Co. v. Isnani:16
"Not every dispute between an employer and employee involves matters
that only labor arbiters and the NLRC can resolve in the exercise of their
adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers. The jurisdiction of labor arbiters and
the NLRC under Article 217 of the Labor Code is limited to disputes arising
Petitioner cannot anchor her claim for damages to Article 161 of the Labor Code,
which does not grant or specify a claim or relief. This provision is only a safety and
health standard under Book IV of the same Code. The enforcement of this labor
standard rests with the labor secretary.24 Thus, claims for an employer's violation
thereof are beyond the jurisdiction of the labor arbiter. In other words, petitioner
cannot enforce the labor standard provided for in Article 161 by suing for damages
before the labor arbiter.
It is not the NLRC but the regular courts that have jurisdiction over actions for
damages, in which the employer-employee relation is merely incidental, and in which
the cause of action proceeds from a different source of obligation such as a
tort.25 Since petitioner's claim for damages is predicated on a quasi delict or tort that
has no reasonable causal connection with any of the claims provided for in Article
217, other labor statutes, or collective bargaining agreements, jurisdiction over the
action lies with the regular courts26 -- not with the NLRC or the labor arbiters.
Second
Finality of the Monetary Award
Issue:
Petitioner contends that the labor arbiter's monetary award has already reached
finality, since private respondents were not able to file a timely appeal before the
NLRC.
This argument cannot be passed upon in this appeal, because it was not raised in the
tribunals a quo. Well-settled is the rule that issues not raised below cannot be raised
for the first time on appeal. Thus, points of law, theories, and arguments not brought
to the attention of the Court of Appeals need not -- and ordinarily will not -- be
considered by this Court.27 Petitioner's allegation cannot be accepted by this Court on
its face; to do so would be tantamount to a denial of respondents' right to due
process.28
Furthermore, whether respondents were able to appeal on time is a question of fact
that cannot be entertained in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
In general, the jurisdiction of this Court in cases brought before it from the Court of
Appeals is limited to a review of errors of law allegedly committed by the court a
quo.29
WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED, and the assailed Decision and
Resolution AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
EDUARDO
G.
EVIOTA, Petitioner,
vs.
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, THE HON. JOSE BAUTISTA, Presiding Judge
4. On January 26, 1998, Eviota indicated his conformity with the Banks Offer
of Employment by signing a written copy of such offer dated January 22,
1998 (the "Employment Contract"). A copy of the Employment Contract
between Eviota and the Bank is hereto attached as Annex "A."
Lateral
File
TOTAL P1,272,636.00
An itemized schedule of the above expenses incurred by the Bank is hereto
attached as Annex "B."
7. On February 25, 1998, Eviota assumed his position as Compensation and
Benefits Manager with the Bank and began to discharge his duties. At one
Human Resources ("HR") Committee meeting held on March 3, 1998, Eviota
energetically presented to senior management his projects for the year, thus
raising the latters expectations. The same day, Eviota instructed the Banks
HR Administrator to book him a flight for Singapore, where he was
scheduled to participate in a Y2K project on March 10 and 11, 1998.
Confident of Eviotas professed commitment to the Bank, the latter made the
aforementioned airline booking for him. In addition, the Bank allowed Eviota
access to certain sensitive and confidential information and documents
concerning the Banks operations.
8. After leading the Bank to believe that he had come to stay, Eviota
suddenly resigned his employment with immediate effect to re-join his
previous employer. His resignation, which did not comply with the 30-day
prior notice rule under the law and under the Employment Contract, was so
unexpected that it disrupted plans already in the pipeline (e.g., the
development of a salary/matrix grid and salary structure, and the processing
of merit promotion recommendations), aborted meetings previously
scheduled among Bank officers, and forced the Bank to hire the services of
a third party to perform the job he was hired to do. For the services of this
third party, the Bank had to pay a total of P208,807.50. A copy of a receipt
for the above expenses is hereto attached as Annex "C" (See also, Annex
"B").
9. Aside from causing no small degree of chaos within the Bank by reason of
his sudden resignation, Eviota made off with a computer diskette and other
papers and documents containing confidential information on employee
compensation and other Bank matters, such as the salary schedule of all
Corporate and Institutional Banking officers and photocopies of schedules of
benefits provided expatriates being employed by the Bank.
10. With the benefit of hindsight, the Bank realizes that it was simply used by
Eviota as a mere leverage for his selfish efforts at negotiating better terms of
employment with his previous employer. Worse, there is evidence to show
that in his attempts to justify his hasty departure from the Bank and conceal
the real reason for his move, Eviota has resorted to falsehoods derogatory to
A copy of the Banks demand letter dated March 16, 1998 is hereto attached as
Annex "D."
12. In partial compliance with said demand, Eviota made arrangements with
his previous employer to reimburse the Bank for the expenses incurred in
connection with the Banks purchase of the Honda CR-V for his use. The
Bank informed Eviota that in addition to the Honda CR-Vs purchase price of
P848,000.00 (of which Eviota initially shouldered P48,000.00), incidental
costs in the form of Processing Fees (P1,000.00), FPD/MCAR/98-155684
(P1,232.53) and Fund Transfer Price (P18,646.84) were incurred, bringing
the total cost of the Honda CR-V to P868,881.38. On April 29, 1998, the
Bank received two managers checks in the aggregate amount of
P868,881.38, representing costs incurred in connection with the purchase of
the Honda CR-V, inclusive of processing fees and other incidental costs.
Previously, Eviota had returned his P300,000.00 signing bonus, less the
P48,000.00 he had advanced for the Honda CR-Vs purchase price.
13. Eviota never complied with the Banks demand that he reimburse the
latter for the other expenses incurred on his account, amounting to
P360,562.12 (see, Annex "B").3
The respondent bank alleged, by way of its causes of action against the petitioner, the
following:
First Cause of Action
15. Under Article 285 (a) of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended (the
Labor Code), an employee may terminate without just cause the employeremployee relationship by serving written notice on the employer at least one
(1) month in advance. In addition, Section 13 of the Employment Contract
specifically provides that: "Your [i.e., Eviotas] employment may be
terminated by either party giving notice of at least one month." (Annex "A," p.
5.)
15.1. Eviotas failure to comply with the above requirement threw a
monkey wrench into the Banks operations Eviotas sudden
resignation aborted meetings previously scheduled among Bank
officers and disrupted plans for a salary/merit review program and
development of a salary structure and merit grid already in the
pipeline.
Hence, Eviota is liable to the Bank for damages in the amount of at least
P100,000.00.
Third Cause of Action
16. Eviotas false and derogatory statements that the Bank had failed to
deliver what it had purportedly promised have besmirched the Banks
reputation and depicted it as a contract violator and one which does not treat
its employees properly. These derogatory statements have injured the
Banks business standing in the banking community, and have undermined
amended. The petitioner averred that the respondent banks claim for damages arose
out of or were in connection with his employer-employee relationship with the
respondent bank or some aspect or incident of such relationship. The respondent
bank opposed the motion, claiming that its action for damages was within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the trial court. Although its claims for damages incidentally
involved an employer-employee relationship, the said claims are actually predicated
on the petitioners acts and omissions which are separately, specifically and distinctly
governed by the New Civil Code.
On November 29, 1999, the trial court issued an order denying the petitioners motion
to dismiss, ratiocinating that the primary relief prayed for by the respondent bank was
grounded on the tortious manner by which the petitioner terminated his employment
with the latter, and as such is governed by the New Civil Code:
The Court holds that here, since the primary relief prayed for by the plaintiff is for
damages, grounded on the tortious manner by which the defendant terminated his
employment with the company, the same are recoverable under the applicable
provision of the Civil Code, the present controversy is removed from the jurisdiction of
the Labor Arbiter and brings in within the purview of the regular courts.6
The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the said order, but the court issued
an order denying the same. The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court
of Appeals for the nullification of the orders of the trial court, alleging that the court a
quo committed grave abuse of its discretion amounting to excess or lack of
jurisdiction in issuing the said orders. The petitioner further asserted that contrary to
the ruling of the court, the respondent bank claimed damages in its complaint against
the petitioner based on his employment contract, and not on tortious acts.
On November 15, 2001, the CA promulgated a decision dismissing the petition,
holding that the trial court and not the Labor Arbiter had exclusive jurisdiction over the
action of the respondent bank. It held that the latters claims for damages were
grounded on the petitioners sudden and unceremonious severance of his
employment with the respondent bank barely a month after assuming office.
With his motion for reconsideration of the decision having been denied by the CA, the
petitioner filed his petition with this Court contending that:
Suffice to state immediately that on the basis of the allegations in the complaint, it is
the Labor Arbiter, not the Regional Trial Court, which has jurisdiction of the subject
matter of the complaint in Civil Case No. 98-1397, the principal cause of action being
the alleged omission of petitioner in giving notice to the respondent Bank employer of
217 of the Labor Code, as amended, is limited to disputes arising from an employeremployee relationship which can only be resolved by reference to the Labor Code of
the Philippines, other labor laws or their collective bargaining agreements. In
Singapore Airlines Limited v. Pao, 11 the complaint of the employer against the
employee for damages for wanton justice and refusal without just cause to report for
duty, and for having maliciously and with bad faith violated the terms and conditions
of their agreement for a course of conversion training at the expense of the employer,
we ruled that jurisdiction over the action belongs to the civil court:
On appeal to this court, we held that jurisdiction over the controversy belongs to the
civil courts. We stated that the action was for breach of a contractual obligation, which
is intrinsically a civil dispute. We further stated that while seemingly the cause of
action arose from employer-employee relations, the employers claim for damages is
grounded on "wanton failure and refusal" without just cause to report to duty coupled
with the averment that the employee "maliciously and with bad faith" violated the
terms and conditions of the contract to the damage of the employer. Such averments
removed the controversy from the coverage of the Labor Code of the Philippines and
brought it within the purview of the Civil Law.
Jurisprudence has evolved the rule that claims for damages under paragraph 4 of
Article 217, to be cognizable by the Labor Arbiter, must have a reasonable causal
connection with any of the claims provided for in that article. Only if there is such a
connection with the other claims can the claim for damages be considered as arising
from employer-employee relations.12
The claims were the natural consequences flowing from a breach of an obligation,
intrinsically civil in nature.
In Medina v. Castro-Bartolome,13 we held that a complaint of an employee for
damages against the employer for slanderous remarks made against him was within
the exclusive jurisdiction of the regular courts of justice because the cause of action
of the plaintiff was for damages for tortious acts allegedly committed by the employer.
The fact that there was between the parties an employer-employee relationship does
not negate the jurisdiction of the trial court.
In Singapore Airlines Ltd. v. Pao,14 we held that:
Stated differently, petitioner seeks protection under the civil laws and claims no
benefits under the Labor Code.1wphi1The primary relief sought is for liquidated
damages for breach of a contractual obligation. The other items demanded are not
labor benefits demanded by workers generally taken cognizance of in labor disputes,
such as payment of wages, overtime compensation or separation pay. The items
second cause of action, the petitioner simply walked away from his employment with
the private respondent sans any written notice, to the prejudice of the private
respondent, its banking operations and the conduct of its business. Anent its third
cause of action, the petitioner made false and derogatory statements that the private
respondent reneged on its obligations under their contract of employment; thus,
depicting the private respondent as unworthy of trust.
It is evident that the causes of action of the private respondent against the petitioner
do not involve the provisions of the Labor Code of the Philippines and other labor
laws but the New Civil Code. Thus, the said causes of action are intrinsically civil.
There is no causal relationship between the causes of action of the private
respondents causes of action against the petitioner and their employer-employee
relationship. The fact that the private respondent was the erstwhile employer of the
petitioner under an existing employment contract before the latter abandoned his
employment is merely incidental. In fact, the petitioner had already been replaced by
the private respondent before the action was filed against the petitioner.
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision of the
Court of Appeals dismissing the petition of the petitioner is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
The trial court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
because the cause of action for damages arose out of the parties employeremployee relationship. We reversed the order of the trial court and held, thus:
Petitioner does not ask for any relief under the Labor Code of the Philippines. It seeks
to recover damages agreed upon in the contract as redress for private respondents
breach of his contractual obligation to its "damage and prejudice" (Rollo, p. 57). Such
cause of action is within the realm of Civil Law, and jurisdiction over the controversy
belongs to the regular courts. More so when we consider that the stipulation refers to
the post-employment relations of the parties.18
In this case, the private respondents first cause of action for damages is anchored on
the petitioners employment of deceit and of making the private respondent believe
that he would fulfill his obligation under the employment contract with assiduousness
and earnestness. The petitioner volte face when, without the requisite thirty-day
notice under the contract and the Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended, he
abandoned his office and rejoined his former employer; thus, forcing the private
respondent to hire a replacement. The private respondent was left in a lurch, and its
corporate plans and program in jeopardy and disarray. Moreover, the petitioner took
off with the private respondents computer diskette, papers and documents containing
confidential information on employee compensation and other bank matters. On its
June 8, 2007
Instead of filing an Answer, PPHI, PCPI and Klepzig separately moved to dismiss the
complaint on the grounds that the complaint states no cause of action, that the RTC
has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint, as the same is within the
jurisdiction of the NLRC, and that the complaint should be dismissed on the basis of
the doctrine of forum non conveniens.5
DECISION
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking to annul and set aside
the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated October 31, 2000 in CA-G.R. SP No.
54155 and its Resolution2 of August 21, 2002 denying petitioners Motion for
Reconsideration.
The factual and procedural antecedents of the case are as follows:
On January 16, 1998, herein respondent Antonio D. Todaro (Todaro) filed with the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, a complaint for Sum of Money and
Damages with Preliminary Attachment against Pioneer International Limited (PIL),
Pioneer Concrete Philippines, Inc. (PCPI), Pioneer Philippines Holdings, Inc. (PPHI),
John G. McDonald (McDonald) and Philip J. Klepzig (Klepzig).3
In his complaint, Todaro alleged that PIL is a corporation duly organized and existing
under the laws of Australia and is principally engaged in the ready-mix concrete and
concrete aggregates business; PPHI is the company established by PIL to own and
hold the stocks of its operating company in the Philippines; PCPI is the company
established by PIL to undertake its business of ready-mix concrete, concrete
aggregates and quarrying operations in the Philippines; McDonald is the Chief
Executive of the Hongkong office of PIL; and, Klepzig is the President and Managing
Director of PPHI and PCPI; Todaro has been the managing director of Betonval
Readyconcrete, Inc. (Betonval), a company engaged in pre-mixed concrete and
concrete aggregate production; he resigned from Betonval in February 1996; in May
1996, PIL contacted Todaro and asked him if he was available to join them in
connection with their intention to establish a ready-mix concrete plant and other
related operations in the Philippines; Todaro informed PIL of his availability and
interest to join them; subsequently, PIL and Todaro came to an agreement wherein
the former consented to engage the services of the latter as a consultant for two to
three months, after which, he would be employed as the manager of PIL's ready-mix
concrete operations should the company decide to invest in the Philippines;
subsequently, PIL started its operations in the Philippines; however, it refused to
comply with its undertaking to employ Todaro on a permanent basis.4
In its Order dated January 4, 1999, the RTC of Makati, Branch 147, denied herein
petitioners' respective motions to dismiss.6 Herein petitioners, as defendants, filed an
Urgent Omnibus Motion7 for the reconsideration of the trial court's Order of January 4,
1999 but the trial court denied it via its Order8 dated June 3, 1999.
On August 3, 1999, herein petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA.9 On
October 31, 2000, the CA rendered its presently assailed Decision denying herein
petitioners' Petition for Certiorari. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration but
the CA denied it in its Resolution dated August 21, 2002.
Hence, herein Petition for Review on Certiorari based on the following assignment of
errors:
A.
THE COURT OF APPEALS' CONCLUSION THAT THE COMPLAINT
STATES A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST PETITIONERS IS WITHOUT ANY
LEGAL BASIS. THE ANNEXES TO THE COMPLAINT CLEARLY BELIE
THE ALLEGATION OF EXISTENCE OF AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT
BETWEEN PRIVATE RESPONDENT AND PETITIONERS.
B.
THE COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED A QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE IN A
WAY NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND WITH APPLICABLE DECISIONS
OF THE SUPREME COURT WHEN IT UPHELD THE JURISDICTION OF
THE TRIAL COURT DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE COMPLAINT
INDUBITABLY SHOWS THAT IT IS AN ACTION FOR AN ALLEGED
BREACH OF EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT, AND HENCE, FALLS WITHIN
THE EXLCUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION.
C
personalities which are separate and distinct from those acting in their behalf, such as
Klepzig.
As to their second assigned error, petitioners contend that since herein respondent's
claims for actual, moral and exemplary damages are solely premised on the alleged
breach of employment contract, the present case should be considered as falling
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the NLRC.
With respect to the third assigned error, petitioners assert that the principle of forum
non conveniens dictates that even where exercise of jurisidiction is authorized by law,
courts may refuse to entertain a case involving a foreign element where the matter
can be better tried and decided elsewhere, either because the main aspects of the
case transpired in a foreign jurisdiction or the material witnesses have their residence
there and the plaintiff sought the forum merely to secure procedural advantage or to
annoy or harass the defendant. Petitioners also argue that one of the factors in
determining the most convenient forum for conflicts problem is the power of the court
to enforce its decision. Petitioners contend that since the majority of the defendants in
the present case are not residents of the Philippines, they are not subject to
compulsory processes of the Philippine court handling the case for purposes of
requiring their attendance during trial. Even assuming that they can be summoned,
their appearance would entail excessive costs. Petitioners further assert that there is
no allegation in the complaint from which one can conclude that the evidence to be
presented during the trial can be better obtained in the Philippines. Moreover, the
events which led to the present controversy occurred outside the Philippines.
Petitioners conclude that based on the foregoing factual circumstances, the case
should be dismissed under the principle of forum non conveniens.
In his Comment, respondent extensively quoted the assailed CA Decision maintaining
that the factual allegations in the complaint determine whether or not the complaint
states a cause of action.
As to the question of jurisdiction, respondent contends that the complaint he filed was
not based on a contract of employment. Rather, it was based on petitioners'
unwarranted breach of their contractual obligation to employ respondent. This breach,
respondent argues, gave rise to an action for damages which is cognizable by the
regular courts.
Even assuming that there was an employment contract, respondent asserts that for
the NLRC to acquire jurisdiction, the claim for damages must have a reasonable
causal connection with the employer-employee relationship of petitioners and
respondent.
Hence, in resolving whether or not the Complaint in the present case states a cause
of action, the trial court correctly limited itself to examining the sufficiency of the
allegations in the Complaint as well as the annexes thereto. It is proscribed from
inquiring into the truth of the allegations in the Complaint or the authenticity of any of
the documents referred or attached to the Complaint, since these are deemed
hypothetically admitted by the respondent.
As to the applicability of the doctrine of forum non conveniens, respondent avers that
the question of whether a suit should be entertained or dismissed on the basis of the
principle of forum non conveniens depends largely upon the facts of the particular
case and is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, who is in the best
position to determine whether special circumstances require that the court desist from
assuming jurisdiction over the suit.
The issue as to whether or not there was a perfected contract between petitioners
and respondent is a matter which is not ripe for determination in the present case;
rather, this issue must be taken up during trial, considering that its resolution would
necessarily entail an examination of the veracity of the allegations not only of herein
respondent as plaintiff but also of petitioners as defendants.
The Court does not agree with petitioners' contention that they were not privy to the
negotiations for respondent's possible employment. It is evident from paragraphs 24
to 28 of the Complaint 16 that, on various occasions, Klepzig conducted negotiations
with respondent regarding the latter's possible employment. In fact, Annex "H" 17of the
complaint shows that it was Klepzig who informed respondent that his company was
no longer interested in employing respondent. Hence, based on the allegations in the
Complaint and the annexes attached thereto, respondent has a cause of action
against herein petitioners.
As to the question of jurisdiction, this Court has consistently held that where no
employer-employee relationship exists between the parties and no issue is involved
which may be resolved by reference to the Labor Code, other labor statutes or any
collective bargaining agreement, it is the Regional Trial Court that has jurisdiction. 18 In
the present case, no employer-employee relationship exists between petitioners and
respondent. In fact, in his complaint, private respondent is not seeking any relief
under the Labor Code, but seeks payment of damages on account of petitioners'
alleged breach of their obligation under their agreement to employ him. It is settled
that an action for breach of contractual obligation is intrinsically a civil dispute.19 In the
alternative, respondent seeks redress on the basis of the provisions of Articles 19 and
21 of the Civil Code. Hence, it is clear that the present action is within the realm of
civil law, and jurisdiction over it belongs to the regular courts.20
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision and
Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.
Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
ARSENIO
Z.
LOCSIN, Petitioner,
vs.
NISSAN LEASE PHILS. INC. and LUIS BANSON, Respondents.
On July 11, 2007, instead of filing their position paper, NCLPI and Banson filed a
Motion to Dismiss,10 on the ground that the Labor Arbiter did not have jurisdiction over
the case since the issue of Locsins removal as EVP/Treasurer involves an intracorporate dispute.
Further, the CA pointed out Locsins failure to "state any circumstance by which
NCLPI engaged his services as a corporate officer that would make him an
employee." The CA found, in this regard, that Locsins assumption and retention as
EVP/Treasurer was based on his election and subsequent re-elections from 1992
until 2005. Further, he performed only those functions that were "specifically set forth
in the By-Laws or required of him by the Board of Directors.17"
With respect to the suit Locsin filed with the Labor Arbiter, the CA held that:
Private respondent, in belatedly filing this suit before the Labor Arbiter, questioned the
legality of his "dismissal" but in essence, he raises the issue of whether or not the
Board of Directors had the authority to remove him from the corporate office to which
he was elected pursuant to the By-Laws of the petitioner corporation. Indeed, had
private respondent been an ordinary employee, an election conducted by the Board
of Directors would not have been necessary to remove him as Executive VicePresident/Treasurer. However, in an obvious attempt to preclude the application of
settled jurisprudence that corporate officers whose position is provided in the by-laws,
their election, removal or dismissal is subject to Section 5 of P.D. No. 902-A (now R.A.
No. 8799), private respondent would even claim in his Position Paper, that since his
responsibilities were akin to that of the companys Executive VicePresident/Treasurer, he was "hired under the pretext that he was being elected into
said post.18 [Emphasis supplied.]
As a consequence, the CA concluded that Locsin does not have any recourse with
the Labor Arbiter or the NLRC since the removal of a corporate officer, whether
elected or appointed, is an intra-corporate controversy over which the NLRC has no
jurisdiction.19 Instead, according to the CA, Locsins complaint for "illegal dismissal"
should have been filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), pursuant to Rule 6 of the
Interim Rules of Procedure Governing Intra-Corporate Controversies.20
Finally, the CA addressed Locsins invocation of Article 4 of the Labor Code.
Dismissing the application of the provision, the CA cited Dean Cesar Villanueva of the
Ateneo School of Law, as follows:
x x x the non-coverage of corporate officers from the security of tenure clause under
the Constitution is now well-established principle by numerous decisions upholding
such doctrine under the aegis of the 1987 Constitution in the face of contemporary
decisions of the same Supreme Court likewise confirming that security of tenure
covers all employees or workers including managerial employees.21
THE PETITIONERS ARGUMENTS
Chairman of the Board on January 1, 2005. Instead, he theorizes that he never lost
his position as EVP/Treasurer having continuously performed the functions
appurtenant thereto.25 Thus, he questions his "unceremonious removal" as
EVP/Treasurer during the August 5, 2005 special Board meeting.
THE RESPONDENTS ARGUMENTS
It its April 17, 2009 Comment, 26 Nissan prays for the denial of the petition for lack of
merit. Nissan submits that the CA correctly ruled that the Labor Arbiter does not have
jurisdiction over Locsins complaint for illegal dismissal. In support, Nissan maintains
that Locsin is a corporate officer and not an employee. In addressing the procedural
defect Locsin raised, Nissan brushes the issue aside, stating that (1) this issue was
belatedly raised in the Motion for Reconsideration, and that (2) in any case, Rule VI,
Section 2(1) of the NLRC does not apply since only appealable decisions, resolutions
and orders are covered under the rule.
THE COURTS RULING
We resolve to deny the petition for lack of merit.
At the outset, we stress that there are two (2) important considerations in the final
determination of this case. On the one hand, Locsin raises a procedural issue that, if
proven correct, will require the Court to dismiss the instant petition for using an
improper remedy. On the other hand, there is the substantive issue that will be
disregarded if a strict implementation of the rules of procedure is upheld.
Prefatorily, we agree with Locsins submission that the NCLPI incorrectly elevated the
Labor Arbiters denial of the Motion to Dismiss to the CA. Locsin is correct in positing
that the denial of a motion to dismiss is unappealable. As a general rule, an aggrieved
partys proper recourse to the denial is to file his position paper, interpose the grounds
relied upon in the motion to dismiss before the labor arbiter, and actively participate in
the proceedings. Thereafter, the labor arbiters decision can be appealed to the
NLRC, not to the CA.
As a rule, we strictly adhere to the rules of procedure and do everything we can, to
the point of penalizing violators, to encourage respect for these rules. We take
exception to this general rule, however, when a strict implementation of these rules
would cause substantial injustice to the parties.
We see it appropriate to apply the exception to this case for the reasons discussed
below; hence, we are compelled to go beyond procedure and rule on the merits of the
Our ruling in Mejillano v. Lucillo36 stands for the proposition that we should strictly
apply the rules of procedure. We said:
Time and again, we have ruled that procedural rules do not exist for the convenience
of the litigants. Rules of Procedure exist for a purpose, and to disregard such rules in
the guise of liberal construction would be to defeat such purpose. Procedural rules
were established primarily to provide order to and enhance the efficiency of our
judicial system. [Emphasis supplied.]
An exception to this rule is our ruling in Lazaro v. Court of Appeals 37 where we held
that the strict enforcement of the rules of procedure may be relaxed in exceptionally
meritorious cases:
x x x Procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their nonobservance may have resulted in prejudice to a party's substantive rights. Like all
rules, they are required to be followed except only for the most persuasive of reasons
when they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with
the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed.
The Court reiterates that rules of procedure, especially those prescribing the time
within which certain acts must be done, "have oft been held as absolutely
indispensable to the prevention of needless delays and to the orderly and speedy
discharge of business. x x x The reason for rules of this nature is because the
dispatch of business by courts would be impossible, and intolerable delays would
result, without rules governing practice x x x. Such rules are a necessary incident to
the proper, efficient and orderly discharge of judicial functions." Indeed, in no
uncertain terms, the Court held that the said rules may be relaxed only in
exceptionally meritorious cases. [Emphasis supplied.]
Whether a case involves an exceptionally meritorious circumstance can be tested
under the guidelines we established in Sanchez v. Court of Appeals,38 as follows:
Aside from matters of life, liberty, honor or property which would warrant the
suspension of the Rules of the most mandatory character and an examination and
review by the appellate court of the lower courts findings of fact, the other elements
that should be considered are the following: (a) the existence of special or compelling
circumstances, (b) the merits of the case, (c) a cause not entirely attributable to the
fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules, (d) a lack of
any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory, and (e) the other
party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby. [Emphasis supplied.]
Under these standards, we hold that exceptional circumstances exist in the present
case to merit the relaxation of the applicable rules of procedure.
IV
Section 1. Election and Appointment The Board of Directors at their first meeting,
annually thereafter, shall elect as officers of the Corporation a Chairman of the Board,
a President, an Executive Vice-President/Treasurer, a Vice-President/General
Manager and a Corporate Secretary. The other Senior Operating Officers of the
Corporation shall be appointed by the Board upon the recommendation of the
President.
xxxx
Section 4. Executive Vice-President/Treasurer The Executive VicePresident/Treasurer shall have such powers and perform such duties as are
prescribed by these By-Laws, and as may be required of him by the Board of
Directors. As the concurrent Treasurer of the Corporation, he shall have the charge of
the funds, securities, receipts, and disbursements of the Corporation. He shall
deposit, or cause to be deposited, the credit of the Corporation in such banks or trust
companies, or with such banks of other depositories, as the Board of Directors may
from time to time designate. He shall tender to the President or to the Board of
Directors whenever required an account of the financial condition of the corporation
and of all his transactions as Treasurer. As soon as practicable after the close of each
fiscal year, he shall make and submit to the Board of Directors a like report of such
fiscal year. He shall keep correct books of account of all the business and
transactions of the Corporation.
In Okol v. Slimmers World International,40 citing Tabang v. National Labor Relations
Commission,41 we held that
x x x an "office" is created by the charter of the corporation and the officer is
elected by the directors or stockholders. On the other hand, an "employee"
usually occupies no office and generally is employed not by action of the directors or
stockholders but by the managing officer of the corporation who also determines the
compensation to be paid to such employee. [Emphasis supplied.]
In this case, Locsin was elected by the NCLPI Board, in accordance with the
Amended By-Laws of the corporation. The following factual determination by the CA
is elucidating:
More important, private respondent failed to state any such "circumstance" by which
the petitioner corporation "engaged his services" as corporate officer that would make
him an employee. In the first place, the Vice-President/Treasurer was elected on an
annual basis as provided in the By-Laws, and no duties and responsibilities were
stated by private respondent which he discharged while occupying said position other
than those specifically set forth in the By-Laws or required of him by the Board of
Directors. The unrebutted fact remains that private respondent held the position of
Executive Vice-President/Treasurer of petitioner corporation, a position provided for in
the latters by-laws, by virtue of election by the Board of Directors, and has functioned
as such Executive Vice-President/Treasurer pursuant to the provisions of the said ByLaws. Private respondent knew very well that he was simply not re-elected to the said
position during the August 5, 2005 board meeting, but he had objected to the election
of a new set of officers held at the time upon the advice of his lawyer that he cannot
be "terminated" or replaced as Executive Vice-President/Treasurer as he had attained
tenurial security.42
5.2. The Commissions jurisdiction over all cases enumerated under Section 5 of
Presidential Decree No. 902-A is hereby transferred to the Courts of general
jurisdiction or the appropriate Regional Trial Court. [Emphasis supplied.]
b. Precedence
of
Primacy of Element of Jurisdiction
Substantive
Merits;
This case stemmed from a Complaint for Ejectment filed by Twenty-Two Realty
Development Corporation (TTRDC), respondent, on December 12, 1996 with the
Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 60, Mandaluyong City against the abovenamed petitioners. The complaint, docketed as Civil Case No. 15340, alleges that on
October 11, 1954, Victoriano Gayoso (now deceased) sold to Prospero Almeda a lot
located on Mariveles corner Calbayog Streets, Mandaluyong City. After the sale,
Almeda allowed Gayoso and his children, herein petitioners, to stay on the property
as lessees, paying P20.00 a month. Later, Almeda's heirs sold the lot to respondent
TTRDC. Thus, on February 19, 1996, the title to the property was transferred in the
name of respondent corporation.
The MeTC ruled that since petitioners failed to pay rentals for more than three
months, then respondent has the right to evict them from the premises.
However, petitioners have stopped paying rentals. Respondent then sent letters dated
September 12 and October 17, 1996 to petitioners demanding that they vacate the
premises, but they refused to do so. This prompted respondent to file with the MeTC
a complaint for illegal detainer against them.
On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 213, Mandaluyong City, affirmed
the MeTC Decision, holding that the refusal of petitioners to vacate the property and
pay the rents make out a clear case of unlawful detainer over which the MeTC has
jurisdiction.
Petitioners then filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition for Review under Rule 42 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
SO ORDERED.