02/08/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 485

*
G.R. No. 166876. March 24, 2006.
1
ARTEMIO INIEGO, petitioner, vs. The HONORABLE
JUDGE GUILLERMO G. PURGANAN, in his official
capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 42, City of Manila, and FOKKER C. SANTOS,
respondents.

Civil Procedure; Courts; Jurisdictions; What must be

determined to be capable or incapable of pecuniary estimation is
not the cause of action, but the subject matter of the action.—
Respondent Judge’s observation is erroneous. It is crystal clear
from B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691, that
what must be determined to be capable or incapable of pecuniary
estimation is not the cause of action, but the subject matter of the
action. A cause of action is “the delict or wrongful act or omission
committed by the defendant in violation of the primary rights of
the plaintiff.” On the other hand, the “subject matter of the
action” is “the physical facts, the thing real or personal, the
money, lands, chattels, and the like, in relation to which the suit
is prosecuted, and not the delict or wrong committed by the
defendant.”
Same; Same; Same; Damages; Actions for damages based on
quasi-delicts are primarily and effectively actions for the recovery
of a sum of money for the damages suffered because of the
defendant’s alleged tortious acts.—Actions for damages based on
quasi-delicts are primarily and effectively actions for the recovery
of a sum of money for the damages suffered because of the
defendant’s alleged tortious acts. The damages claimed in such
actions represent the monetary equivalent of the injury caused to
the plaintiff by the defendant, which are thus sought to be
recovered by the plaintiff. This money claim is the principal relief
sought, and is not merely incidental thereto or a consequence
thereof. It bears to point out that the complaint filed by private
respondent before the RTC actually bears the caption “for
DAMAGES.”
Same; Same; Same; Same; Subsection (d) of Section 5, Rule 2
of the Rules of Court provides that where the claims in all such
joined causes of action are principally for recovery of money, the
aggregate

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c51d12f054bd93fa1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/12
02/08/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 485

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

1 Also spelled as Iñego in some parts of the Rollo and Records.

395

VOL. 485, MARCH 24, 2006 395

Iniego vs. Purganan

amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction.—Even assuming,

for the sake of argument, that the claims for moral and exemplary
damages arose from a cause of action other than the quasi-delict,
their inclusion in the computation of damages for jurisdictional
purposes is still proper. All claims for damages should be
considered in determining the jurisdiction of the court regardless
of whether they arose from a single cause of action or several
causes of action. Rule 2, Section 5, of the Rules of Court allows a
party to assert as many causes of action as he may have against
the opposing party. Subsection (d) of said section provides that
where the claims in all such joined causes of action are principally
for recovery of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be the
test of jurisdiction.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Actions for damages based on
quasidelicts are actions that are capable of pecuniary estimation.
—Actions for damages based on quasi-delicts are actions that are
capable of pecuniary estimation. As such, they fall within the
jurisdiction of either the RTC or the municipal courts, depending
on the amount of damages claimed. In this case, the amount of
damages claimed is within the jurisdiction of the RTC, since it is
the claim for all kinds of damages that is the basis of determining
the jurisdiction of courts, whether the claims for damages arise
from the same or from different causes of action.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     Rene A. Elevazo for petitioner.

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:

For this Court to grant this petition for review on certiorari

under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, petitioner has to
persuade us on two engaging questions of law. First, he has
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c51d12f054bd93fa1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/12
02/08/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 485

to convince us that actions for damages based on quasi-

delict are actions that are capable of pecuniary estimation,
and therefore would fall under the jurisdiction of the
municipal courts if the claim does not exceed the
jurisdictional amount of P400,000.00 in Metro Manila.
Second, he has to convince us

396

396 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Iniego vs. Purganan

that the moral and exemplary damages claimed by the

private respondent should be excluded from the
computation of the above-mentioned jurisdictional amount
because they arose from a cause of action other than the
negligent act of the defendant.
Petitioner urges us to reverse the 28 October 2004
Decision and 26 January 2005 Resolution of the Court of
Appeals, Eighth Division, in CA-G.R. SP No. 76206 denying
due course to the petition for certiorari filed by petitioner
under Rule 65, elevating the 21 October 2002 Omnibus
Order and the 21 January 2003 Order of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Branch 42, City of Manila. The dispositive
portion of the 28 October 2004 Decision of the Court of
Appeals reads:

“WHEREFORE, the petition 2 is DENIED DUE COURSE and

DISMISSED for lack of merit.”

The factual and procedural antecedents of this case are as

follows:
On 1 March 2002, private respondent Fokker Santos
filed a complaint for quasi-delict and damages against
Jimmy T. Pinion, the driver of a truck involved in a traffic
accident, and against petitioner Artemio Iniego, as owner
of the said truck and employer of Pinion. The complaint
stemmed from a vehicular accident that happened on 11
December 1999, when a freight truck allegedly being
driven by Pinion hit private respondent’s jitney which
private respondent was driving at the time of the accident.
On 24 August 2002, private respondent filed a Motion to
Declare defendant in Default allegedly for failure of the
latter to file his answer within the final extended period.
On 28 August 2002, petitioner filed a Motion to Admit and
a Motion to Dismiss the complaint on the ground, among
other things, that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the
cause of action of the case.

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c51d12f054bd93fa1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/12
02/08/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 485

_______________

2 Rollo, p. 17.

397

VOL. 485, MARCH 24, 2006 397

Iniego vs. Purganan

On 21 October 2002, public respondent Judge Guillermo G.

Purganan, acting as presiding judge of the RTC, Branch 42,
Manila, issued the assailed Omnibus Order denying the
Motion to Dismiss of the petitioner and the Motion to
Declare Defendant in Default of the private respondent.
Pertinent portions of the Omnibus Order and the
dispositive portion thereof read:

“In his opposition to the motion to declare him in default and his
Motion to Admit defendant IÑEGO alleged that he never received
the Order dated 12 August 2002. But believing in good faith,
without being presumptuous, that his 3rd Motion for additional
Time to file or any appropriate [pleading] would be granted, he
filed the aforesaid Motion received by the Court on 23 August
2002.
The explanation of defendant IÑEGO has merit. The order
dated 12 August 2002 was sent to a wrong address, thus
defendant IÑEGO did not receive it. Since it was not received, he
was not aware that the court would grant no further extension.
The Motion to Admit Motion to Dismiss has to be granted and the
Motion to declare Defendant IÑEGO [in default] has to be
DENIED.
xxxx
The plaintiff opines that this court has exclusive jurisdiction
because the cause of action is the claim for damages, which
exceeds P400,000.00. The complaint prays for actual damages in
the amount of P40,000.00, moral damages in the amount of
P300,000.00, and exemplary damages in the amount of
P150,000.00. Excluding attorney’s fees in the amount of
P50,000.00, the total amount of damages being claimed is
P490,000.00.
Proceeding on the assumption that the cause of action is the
claim of (sic) for damages in the total amount of P490,000.00, this
court has jurisdiction. But is the main cause of action the claim
for damages?
This court is of the view that the main cause of action is not the
claim for damages but quasi-delict. Damages are being claimed
only as a result of the alleged fault or negligence of both
defendants under Article 2176 of the Civil Code in the case of

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c51d12f054bd93fa1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/12
02/08/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 485

defendant Pinion and under Article 2180 also of the Civil Code in
the case of defendant Iniego. But since fault or negligence (quasi-
delicts) could not be the subject of pecuniary estimation, this court
has exclusive jurisdiction.

398

398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Iniego vs. Purganan

xxxx
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the motion to
declare defendant Iniego in 3 default and the said defendant’s
motion to dismiss are denied.”

On 7 November 2002, petitioner filed a Motion for

Reconsideration of the Omnibus Order of 21 October 2002.
On 21 January 2003, public respondent issued an Order
denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Pertinent
portions of the 21 January 2003 Order are reproduced
hereunder:

What this court referred to in its Order sought to be reconsidered

as not capable of pecuniary estimation is the CAUSE OF
ACTION, which is quasi-delict and NOT the amount of damage
prayed for.
xxxx
WHEREFORE, in view 4 of the foregoing, the motion for
reconsideration is DENIED.”

Petitioner elevated the 21 October 2002 and 21 January

2003 Orders of the RTC to the Court of Appeals on petition
for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. On 28
October 2004, the Court of Appeals promulgated the
assailed Decision, the dispositive portion thereof reads:

“WHEREFORE, the petition 5

is DENIED DUE COURSE and
dismissed for lack of merit.”

On 22 November 2004, petitioner moved for

reconsideration, which was denied by the Court of Appeals
on 26 January 2005. Hence, this present petition.
Petitioner claims that actions for damages based on
quasidelict are actions that are capable of pecuniary
estimation; hence, the jurisdiction in such cases falls upon
either the

_______________

3 Id., p. 35.
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c51d12f054bd93fa1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/12
02/08/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 485

4 Id., p. 40.
5 Id., p. 17.

399

VOL. 485, MARCH 24, 2006 399

Iniego vs. Purganan

municipal courts (the Municipal Trial Courts, Metropolitan

Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts In Cities, And
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts), or the Regional Trial
Courts, depending on the value of the damages claimed.
Petitioner argues further that should this Court find
actions for damages capable of pecuniary estimation, then
the total amount of damages claimed by the private
respondent must exceed P400,000.00 in order that it may
fall under the jurisdiction of the RTC. Petitioner asserts,
however, that the moral and exemplary damages claimed
by private respondent be excluded from the computation of
the total amount of damages for jurisdictional purposes
because the said moral and exemplary damages arose, not
from the quasi-delict, but from the petitioner’s refusal to
pay the actual damages.

Actions for damages based on quasi-delicts are

primarily and effectively actions for the recovery of
a sum of money for the damages suffered because of
the de-fendant’s alleged tortious acts, and are
therefore capable of 6
pecuniary estimation.
In a recent case, we did affirm the jurisdiction of a
Municipal Circuit Trial Court in actions for damages based
on quasi-delict, although the ground used to challenge said
jurisdiction was an alleged forum shopping, and not the
applicability of Section 19(1) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129.
According to respondent Judge, what he referred to in
his assailed Order as not capable of pecuniary estimation is
the cause of action, which is a 7quasi-delict, and not the
amount of damage prayed for. From this, respondent
Judge concluded that since fault or negligence in quasi-
delicts cannot be the

_______________

6 See Casupanan v. Laroya, 436 Phil. 582, 592; 388 SCRA 28, 42 (2002).
7 Rollo, p. 40.

400
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c51d12f054bd93fa1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/12
02/08/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 485

400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Iniego vs. Purganan

subject of pecuniary estimation, the RTC has jurisdiction.

The Court8
of Appeals affirmed respondent Judge in this
respect.
Respondent Judge’s observation is erroneous. It is
crystal clear from B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by Republic
Act No. 7691, that what must be determined to be capable
or incapable of pecuniary estimation is not 9the cause of
action, but the subject matter of the action. A cause of
action is “the delict or wrongful act or omission committed
by the defendant
10
in violation of the primary rights of the
plaintiff.” On the other hand, the “subject matter of the
action” is “the physical facts, the thing real or personal, the
money, lands, chattels, and the like, in relation to which
the suit is prosecuted, and 11
not the delict or wrong
committed by the defendant.” 12
The case of Lapitan v. Scandia, Inc., et al., has guided
this Court time and again in determining whether the
subject

_______________

8 Rollo, p. 16.
9 Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, Sec. 19: Jurisdiction in Civil Cases.—
Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction:

(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable
of pecuniary estimation;
(2) x x x x

10 Joseph v. Bautista, G.R. No. 41423, 23 February 1989, 170 SCRA

540, 544.
11 Mathay v. Consolidated Bank and Trust Company, 157 Phil. 551,
565; 58 SCRA 559, 571 (1974).
12 133 Phil. 526; 24 SCRA 479 (1968); See Spouses Huguete v. Spouses
Embudo, 453 Phil. 170, 176-177; 405 SCRA 273, 278 (2003); Radio
Communications of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 435 Phil. 62, 66;
386 SCRA 67, 70 (2002); Barangay San Roque, Talisay, Cebu v. Heirs of
Pastor, 389 Phil. 467, 471; 334 SCRA 127, 132 (2000); Russell v. Vestil,
364 Phil. 392, 400; 304 SCRA 738, 744 (1999); De Leon v. Court of Appeals,
350 Phil. 535, 541; 287 SCRA 94, 99 (1998); Raymundo v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 97805, 2 September 1992, 213 SCRA 457, 460-461;
Amorganda v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 80040, 30 September 1988, 166

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c51d12f054bd93fa1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/12
02/08/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 485

SCRA 203, 212; Singsong v. Isabela Sawmill, G.R. No. L-27343, 28

February 1979, 88 SCRA 623, 637.

401

VOL. 485, MARCH 24, 2006 401

Iniego vs. Purganan

matter of the action is capable of pecuniary estimation. In

Lapitan, the Court spoke through the eminent Mr. Justice
Jose B.L. Reyes:

“In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of

which is not capable of pecuniary estimation this Court has
adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the
principal action or remedy sought. If it is primarily for the
recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered capable
of pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the
municipal courts or in the courts of first instance [now
Regional Trial Courts] would depend on the amount of the
claim. However, where the basic issue is something other than
the right to recover a sum of money, where the money claim is
purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief
sought like suits to have the defendant perform his part of the
contract (specific performance) and in actions for support, or for
annulment of a judgment or to foreclose a mortgage, this court
has considered such actions as cases where the subject of the
litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are
cognizable exclusively13
by courts of first instance [now Regional
Trial Courts]. x x x.” (Emphasis supplied.)

Actions for damages based on quasi-delicts are primarily

and effectively actions for the recovery of a sum of money
for the damages suffered because of the defendant’s alleged
tortious acts. The damages claimed in such actions
represent the monetary equivalent of the injury caused to
the plaintiff by the defendant, which are thus sought to be
recovered by the plaintiff. This money claim is the principal
relief sought, and is not merely incidental thereto or a
consequence thereof. It bears to point out that the
complaint filed by private respondent before the RTC
actually bears the caption “for DAMAGES.”
Fault or negligence, which the Court of Appeals claims
is not capable of pecuniary estimation, is not actionable by
itself. For such fault or negligence to be actionable, there
must be a resulting damage to a third person. The relief
available

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c51d12f054bd93fa1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/12
02/08/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 485

_______________

13 Lapitan v. Scandia, Inc., et al., Id., at p. 528; p. 481.

402

402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Iniego vs. Purganan

to the offended party in such cases is for the reparation,

restitution, or payment of such damage, without which any
alleged offended party has no cause of action or relief. The
fault or negligence of the defendant, therefore, is
inextricably intertwined with the claim for damages, and
there can be no action based on quasi-delict without a claim
for damages.
We therefore rule that the subject matter of actions for
damages based on quasi-delict is capable of pecuniary
estimation.

II

The amount of damages claimed is within the

jurisdiction of the RTC, since it is the claim for all
kinds of damages that is the basis of determining the
jurisdiction of courts, whether the claims for
damages arise from the same or from different
causes of action.
Despite our concurrence in petitioner’s claim that
actions for damages based on quasi-delict are actions that
are capable of pecuniary estimation, we find that the total
amount of damages claimed by the private respondent
nevertheless still exceeds the jurisdictional limit of
P400,000.00 and remains under the jurisdiction of the
RTC.
Petitioner argues that in actions for damages based on
quasi-delict, claims for damages arising from a different
cause of action (i.e., other than the fault or negligence of
the defendant) should not be included in the computation of
the jurisdictional amount. According to petitioner, the
moral and exemplary damages claimed by the respondents
in the case at bar are not direct and proximate
consequences of the alleged negligent act. Petitioner points
out that the complaint itself stated that such moral and
exemplary damages arose from the alleged refusal of
defendants to honor the demand for damages, and
therefore there is no reasonable cause and effect between
the fault or negligence of the defendant and

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c51d12f054bd93fa1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/12
02/08/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 485

403

VOL. 485, MARCH 24, 2006 403

Iniego vs. Purganan
14
the claim for moral and exemplary damages. If the claims
for moral and exemplary damages are not included in the
computation for purposes of determining jurisdiction, only
the claim for actual damages in the amount of P40,000.00
will be considered, and the MeTC will have jurisdiction.
We cannot give credence to petitioner’s arguments. The
distinction he made between damages arising directly from
injuries in a quasi-delict and those arising from a refusal to
admit liability for a quasi-delict is more apparent than real,
as the damages sought by respondent originate from the
same cause of action: the quasi-delict. The fault or
negligence of the employee and the juris tantum
presumption of negligence of his employer in his selection
and supervision are the seeds of the damages claimed,
without distinction.
Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the
claims for moral and exemplary damages arose from a
cause of action other than the quasi-delict, their inclusion
in the computation of damages for jurisdictional purposes
is still proper. All claims for damages should be considered
in determining the jurisdiction of the court regardless of
whether they arose from a single cause of action or several
causes of action. Rule 2, Section 5, of the Rules of Court
allows a party to assert as many causes of action as he may
have against the opposing party. Subsection (d) of said
section provides that where the claims in all such joined
causes of action are principally for recovery of money, the 15
aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction.
Hence, whether or not the different claims for damages
are based on a single cause of action or different causes of
action, it is the total amount thereof which shall govern.
Jurisdiction in the case at bar remains with the RTC,
considering that the total amount claimed, inclusive of the
moral and exemplary damages claimed, is P490,000.00.

_______________

14 Rollo, p. 68.
15 See also SC Administrative Circular No. 09-04 (1994).

404

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c51d12f054bd93fa1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/12
02/08/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 485

404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Iniego vs. Purganan

In sum, actions for damages based on quasi-delicts are

actions that are capable of pecuniary estimation. As such,
they fall within the jurisdiction of either the RTC or the
municipal courts, depending on the amount of damages
claimed. In this case, the amount of damages claimed is
within the jurisdiction of the RTC, since it is the claim for
all kinds of damages that is the basis of determining the
jurisdiction of courts, whether the claims for damages arise
from the same or from different causes of action.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is
hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision and
Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated 28 October 2004
and 26 January 2005, respectively, are AFFIRMED insofar
as they held that the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.

          Panganiban (C.J., Chairperson), Ynares-Santiago,

Austria-Martinez and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.

Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.

Notes.—In quasi-delict, exemplary damages are

awarded when the act or omission which caused injury is
attended by gross negligence. (Benguet Electric
Cooperative, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 321 SCRA 524
[1999])
Pursuant to Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on
Criminal Procedure, as amended in 1988, civil actions to
recover liability arising from crime (ex delicto) and under
Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code (quasi-delict)
are deemed impliedly instituted with the criminal action
unless waived, reserved or previously instituted. The
reservation requirement does not impair, diminish or
defeat substantive rights, but only regulates their exercise
in the general interest of orderly procedure. (Hambon vs.
Court of Appeals, 399 SCRA 255 [2003])

——o0o——

405

VOL. 485, MARCH 24, 2006 405

Republic vs. Hong

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c51d12f054bd93fa1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/12
02/08/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 485

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c51d12f054bd93fa1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/12