TOTALITY
OF DEMAND DETERMINES JURISDICTION OF COURTS
Facts:
Soriano brought an
action against Omila for the recovery of sum of money of 300 pesos on the first
cause of action for a promissory note, 700 on the second cause of action for
another promissory note, 3000 on the third cause of action as moral damages and
600 pesos for attorney's fees.
In his answer Omila
alleged that the sums claimed in the first and second causes of action have
already been paid; that the supposed derogatory remarks, basis of third cause,
have not been motivated by ill will or a desire to besmirch the name and
personality of the plaintiff. By way of counterclaim, he demanded P1,683 as
omissions, and P4,200 as moral damages for the filing of the suit, and P1,000
as attorney’s fees.
When the case was
called for hearing, the defendant did not appear and the court heard Soriano’s
evidences and ruled in favor or Soriano for the first and second causes of
actions but dismissed the third and fourth causes of action for lack of
evidence.
When the defendant was
notified of the decision, he presented a motion for reconsideration, alleging
that the court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the first, second
and fourth causes of action. This motion was denied. He appealed directly to
the Supreme Court since only questions of law were raised.
The appellant cites in
support of his contention certain cases and certain general principles from
American Jurisprudence. The cases cited have been decided in Arkansas and can
have no application in this jurisdiction because in that state what determines jurisdiction
is not the amount of demand as our law has always provided but "the amount
in controversy."
Counsel for appellant
also argues that the sum of P3,000 demanded in the plaintiff’s third cause of
action should not be taken into account in ascertaining which court has
jurisdiction, insinuating that the same was not presented in good faith but merely to
defeat the provision of law as to the jurisdictional amount, raising it to an
amount within the jurisdiction of the court of first instance.
Issue:
Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction
Decision:
The demand is not a fictitious demand; the trial court denied the claim for P3,000, not on the
ground that it was unfounded and fictitious, but on the ground that no sufficient
evidence was given to support the same. Under the circumstances, therefore, the
amount demanded in the third cause of action, P3,000, should be included in the
determination of the total amount of the demand. With this claim for P3,000 the
aggregate amount demanded is P4,600, which is far above the amount fixed as a minimum
for the trial court’s jurisdiction. SC dismissed the appeal.
No comments:
Post a Comment