GR 47979; (May, 1942) (Digest)
G.R. No. 47979 ; May 8, 1942
NICETAS A. SUANES, petitioner-appellant, vs. NATIVIDAD ALMEDA-LOPEZ and ELISEO ZAGALA, respondents-appellees.
FACTS
The Insular Motors, Inc. filed a complaint against Nicetas A. Suanes in the Municipal Court of Manila, setting forth two causes of action: (1) for the balance of the purchase price of a Pontiac car amounting to P587.50, plus 12% interest and an additional sum equivalent to 33% of P587.50 as attorney’s fees and liquidated damages; and (2) for towage charges of P59.50, plus 12% interest and an additional sum equivalent to 20% of P59.50 as attorney’s fees. The Municipal Court awarded the plaintiff the total amount demanded. From the outset, the defendant Suanes contested the Municipal Court’s jurisdiction, arguing that the total amount demanded across the two causes of action was not less than P600.
ISSUE
Whether the Municipal Court had jurisdiction over the case, considering the amounts demanded, including attorney’s fees, in the complaint.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance and declared all proceedings in the case null and void. The Court held that the Municipal Court lacked jurisdiction. Under the Judiciary Act ( Act No. 136 , as amended by Act No. 3881, section 68), the Municipal Court had concurrent original jurisdiction with the Court of First Instance only in cases where the amount demanded was more than P200 but less than P600, excluding interest and costs. The Court ruled that this jurisdictional amount does not exclude damages, which are distinguished from interest and costs. Examining the first cause of action alone, the claim was for P587.50 plus attorney’s fees equivalent to 33% of that amount (P193.875), bringing the total for that cause to P781.375. This amount exceeded the P600 jurisdictional limit of the Municipal Court. The Court emphasized that the parties cannot confer jurisdiction by their failure to object, and the face of the complaint determines the court’s jurisdiction.
Separate Opinion (Dissent by Justice Moran):
Justice Moran dissented, arguing that attorney’s fees agreed upon for judicial action should not be included in determining the jurisdictional amount. He reasoned that such fees are merely incidental to the principal case, analogous to rents or damages in detainer cases, and form part of the costs of litigation. He noted the legislative tendency to enlarge inferior court jurisdiction and would have affirmed the judgment.