MAGANNON, JOYCE FE E.

Remedial Law Review Assignment Two cases on Jurisdiction

(1) SOLIVEN v. FASTFORMS PHILIPPINES, INC., G.R. No. 139031, October 18, 2000

Facts:
Fastforms Philippines, through its president Dr. Escobar, obtained a loan from Soliven in
the amount of 170,000.00, payable within a period of twenty-one (21) days, with an interest of
3%, as evidenced by a promissory note executed by Dr. Escobar. A postdated check was issued
to Soliven dated June 25, 1993 in the amount of 175,000.00 representing the principal and the
interest of 5,000.00. On due date, the parties agreed that the 175,000.00 be "rolled-over,"
with a monthly interest of 5%. Subsequently, Fastforms issued to Soliven several checks in the
total sum of 76,250.00 as payment for interests. Later on, however, it refused to pay the
principal obligation and the interests due despite repeated demands. Hence, Soliven filed with
the Regional Trial Court a complaint for sum of money with damages against Fastforms. She
prayed for the following sums: 195,155.00 as actual damages; 200,000.00 as moral damages;
100,000.00 as exemplary damages; 100,000.00 as attorneys fees; and the costs of suit.
Fastforms, in its answer, denied having obtained any loan from her as it did not authorize Dr.
Escobar to secure any loan from her or issue various checks as payment for interests. The court
ruled in favor of Soliven. Fastforms then filed a motion for reconsideration questioning for the
first time the trial courts jurisdiction. It alleged that since the amount of petitioners principal
demand, 195,155.00, does not exceed 200,000.00, the complaint should have been filed with
the Metropolitan Trial Court pursuant to Republic Act No. 7691. Soliven opposed and stressed
that respondent is barred from assailing the jurisdiction of the trial court since it has invoked
the latters jurisdiction by seeking affirmative relief in its answer to the complaint and actively
participated in all stages of the trial. The trial court denied Fastforms motion, holding that it has
jurisdiction over the case because the totality of the claim therein exceeds 200,000.00. The
trial court also ruled that respondent, under the principle of estoppel, has lost its right to
question its jurisdiction. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial courts Decision on
the ground of lack of jurisdiction. It held that the case is within the jurisdiction of the
Metropolitan Trial Court, Solivens claim being only 195,155.00; and that respondent may
assail the jurisdiction of the trial court anytime even for the first time on appeal. Hence, this
petition.

Issue: Whether the regional trial court has jurisdiction over this case.

Held:
Yes, the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over this case.
Section 1 of Republic Act No. 7691 provides that where the amount of the demand in
civil cases instituted in Metro Manila exceeds 200,000.00, exclusive of interest, damages of
whatever kind, attorneys fees, litigation expenses, and costs, the exclusive original jurisdiction
thereof is lodged with the Regional Trial Court. Under Section 3 of the same law, where the
amount of the demand in the complaint instituted in Metro Manila does not exceed
200,000.00, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorneys fees, litigation
expenses, and costs, the exclusive original jurisdiction over the same is vested in the
Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court and Municipal Circuit Trial Court. In
Administrative Circular No. 09-94, guidelines were specified in the implementation of R.A. 7691.
It provides that the exclusion of the term damages of whatever kind in determining the
jurisdictional amount applies to cases where the damages are merely incidental to or a
consequence of the main cause of action. However, in cases where the claim for damages is the
main cause of action, or one of the causes of action, the amount of such claim shall be
considered in determining the jurisdiction of the court."
Here, the main cause of action is for the recovery of sum of money amounting to only
195,155.00. The damages being claimed by petitioner are merely the consequences of this
main cause of action. Hence, they are not included in determining the jurisdictional amount. It
is plain from R.A. 7691 and our Administrative Circular No. 09-94 that it is the Metropolitan Trial
Court which has jurisdiction over the instant case. However, while it is true that jurisdiction may
be raised at any time, this rule presupposes that estoppel has not supervened. In the instant
case, respondent actively participated in all stages of the proceedings before the trial court and
invoked its authority by asking for an affirmative relief. Clearly, respondent is estopped from
challenging the trial courts jurisdiction, especially when an adverse judgment has been
rendered.

(2) RAYMUNDO v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 97805, September 2, 1992

Facts:
Raymundo, who was an owner/occupant of Unit AB-122 of Galleria de Magallanes
Condominium, made an unauthorized installation of glasses at the balcony of his unit in
violation of the Master Deed and Declaration of Restrictions of the Galleria de Magallanes
Association, which states that nothing shall be done or placed in any unit or in the common
areas which is beyond or will impair the structural strength of the buildings or alter the original
architecture, appearance and specifications of the building, including the external facade
thereof. The association sent a letter to Raymundo demanding him to remove the illegal and
unauthorized installation of glasses at his unit. He refused and hence, a complaint for
mandatory injunction was filed against him with the Regional Trial Court of Makati. He filed a
Motion for extension of time to file an Answer as well as a Motion for production of document
which were granted. However, instead of an Answer, he filed a Motion to Dismiss with the trial
court on the ground that said court has no jurisdiction over the present case since a complaint
for mandatory injunction is within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial
Court. The Motion to Dismiss was denied since the suit is for mandatory injunction and the
Regional Trial Court has the legal competence to issue the same. Upon appeal to the Court of
Appeals in a petition for certiorari and prohibition with restraining order and preliminary
injunction, the petition was again dismissed. Hence, this petition alleging want of jurisdiction of
the trial court to hear and decide the associations complaint for mandatory injunction
considering that its sole pecuniary claim of P10,000.00 as attorneys fees in the case is within
the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court as provided for under
Section 33 of B.P. 129.

Issue: Whether the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over this case.

Held:
Yes, The Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over this case.
The complaint here is an action to compel the petitioner to remove the illegal and
unauthorized installation of glasses at Unit AB-122 of the condominium. Such is not capable of
pecuniary estimation and falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court as
provided for by Section 19(1) of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129. In determining whether an action
is one the subject matter of which is not capable of pecuniary estimation, the 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 trial courts or in the 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, or where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a
consequence of, the principal relief sought, the Court has considered such actions as cases
where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable
exclusively by regional trial courts. The claim of attorneys fees by the association in the amount
of P10,000.00 is only incidental to its principal cause of action which is for the removal of the
illegal and unauthorized installation of the glasses made by the Raymundo and therefore, said
amount is not determinative of the jurisdiction of the court.