Case: Plaintiff brought suit in the CFI of Manila to recover r\., .

-
the value of two promissory notes executed by defendants jointly ,,u*t-lrit,.
and severally. The Court of First Instance dismissed the case for ", !e\'* "
lack of jurisdiction. In an action for collection of the same pro- "4'' &.
missory notes (object of the former rction), the Municipal Court l S1
likewise dismissed thc action on the ground that the amount of the -"ri**" .y- '
two notes, which plaintiff joined in one cause of action, was in - i',".'.."c* "
excess of its jurisdiction. The onlv issue involved is whether or f"
not the Municipal Court has iurisdiction over the subiect matter
of the complaint. Held: Tde correct interpretation of the Judiciary
Act of 1948, rvhich bases t-he jurisdiction of both the Court of
First Instance and the Municipal Court on "the amount of the
demand," is that where there are sevetal claims or causes of action
berween the same parties embodied in a single complaint the juris-
diction of the court depends, 99! on the value or demand in each
single cause of action but on the rgSIlL of the demand in all the
causes of action. This rule aPpears io-beln accord with the weight
of American authority, including the federal courts and those of
6 the State of Caiifornia from which our own rules of practice and
procedure werc mainly taken. (Campas Raeda Cotp' ss' Sta' Cruz
4# Timber Co,, Inc., 9S Phil. 627).
- t l^ t\ ils "
f, I
.f.
{t'1, ,lf 't i }
" \ ril'* iir" ',''J,,cr!*-