IRENE SANTE AND REYNALDOSANTE vs. HON. EDILBERTO T. claim for moral damages to P1,000,000.
ral damages to P1,000,000. Petitioners then filed a motion
CLARAVALL,
G.R. No. 173915, February 22, 2010, VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Topic: Jurisdiction
Nature: Petition for certiorari
Facts:
1) In April 2004, private respondent Vita Kalashian filed before RTC
Baguio a complaint for damages against petitioners Irene Sante and
Reynaldo Sante. Respondent alleged that while she was inside the
Police Station in Pangasinan, and in the presence of other persons
and police officers, Irene Sante uttered the words, “How many rounds
of sex did you have last night with your boss, Bert? You fuckin’ bitch!”
Bert refers to a friend of the respondent and one of her hired security
guards in said station, and a suspect in the killing of petitioners’ close
relative.
Petitioners also allegedly went around Pangasinan telling people that
she is protecting and cuddling the suspects in the aforesaid killing.
Thus, respondent prayed for the following:
Moral Damages 300,000
Exemplary Damages 50, 000
Attorney’s fees 50, 000
Litigation expenses 20, 000
2) Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of jurisdiction.
They claimed that the Municipal Trial Court in Cities instead of RTC
Baguio should take cognizance. They argued that the amount of the
claim for moral damages was not more than the jurisdictional amount
of P300,000.00, because the claim for exemplary damages should be
excluded in computing the total claim.
3) The trial court denied the motion to dismiss on the ground that the
amount of demand P420,000 was above the jurisdictional amount for
MTCC’s outside Metro Manila.
4) Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the CA.
Meanwhile, respondent filed an amended complaint increasing the
to dismiss which was denied.
5) Petitioners AGAIN filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with
the CA, raising that RTC Baguio committed grave abuse of discretion
in allowing the amended complaint. CA ruled in favor of petitioners,
stating that MTCC had jurisdiction because considering ONLY the
demand for P300,000 moral damages. The CA held that the demand
for exemplary damages was merely incidental.
6) Hence, this petition for certiorari.
Issues:
Whether RTC acquired jurisdiction of the case
Whether RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in allowing the
amended complaint
Held: YES. RTC acquired jurisdiction. Hence, there was no grave
abuse of discretion.
Ratio Decidendi:
PETITIONERS’ CONTENTION: The claim for moral damages, in the
amount of P300,000.00 in the original complaint, is the main action.
The exemplary damages being discretionary should not be included
in the computation of the jurisdictional amount. Thus, RTC acted with
grave abuse of discretion in allowing the amended complaint.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION: The nature of her complaint is for
recovery of damages. As such, the totality of the claim for damages,
including the exemplary damages as well as the other damages
alleged and prayed in the complaint, such as attorney’s fees and
litigation expenses, should be included in determining jurisdiction.
The exclusion of the term “damages of whatever kind” in determining
the jurisdictional amount under B.P. Blg. 129 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.
In the instant case, the complaint filed is for the recovery of damages
for the acts of the petitioners. The complaint principally sought an
award of moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorney’s fees
and litigation expenses, for the alleged shame and injury suffered by
respondent. Jurisdiction is conferred by law based on the facts alleged
in the complaint since the latter comprises a concise statement of the
ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff’s causes of action. It is clear,
based on the allegations of the complaint, that respondent’s main
action is for damages. Hence, the other forms of damages being
claimed by respondent, e.g., exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and
litigation expenses, are not merely incidental to or consequences of
the main action but constitute the primary relief prayed for in the
complaint.
Considering that the total amount of damages claimed was
P420,000.00, the Court of Appeals was correct in ruling that the RTC
had jurisdiction over the case.
In Irene Sante vs. Hon. Claravall, the Supreme Court stated that since
at the time of the filing of the complaint on April 5, 2004, the MTCC’s
jurisdictional amount has already been adjusted to P300,000.00, there
is no doubt that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) has jurisdiction over
the case since the total amount of damages being claimed by the
petitioner in the case was P420,000.00.
Moreover, in the said case the Supreme Court found no error,
much less grave abuse of discretion, on the part of the Court of
Appeals in affirming the RTC’s order allowing the amendment of the
original complaint fromP300,000.00 to P1,000,000.00 despite the
pendency of a petition for certiorari filed before the Court of Appeals.
The High Court declared that while it is a basic jurisprudential principle
that an amendment cannot be allowed when the court has no
jurisdiction over the original complaint and the purpose of the
amendment is to confer jurisdiction on the court (Siasoco v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 132753, February 15, 1999, 303 SCRA 186,
196), the RTC in the case clearly had jurisdiction over the original
complaint and the amendment of the complaint was then still a matter
of right under Section 2, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court. Ergo, the
amendment of the complaint was in order
G.R. No. 176492, October 20, 2014,
MARIETTA N. BARRIDO, PETITIONER, vs. LEONARDO V.
NONATO, RESPONDENT
Facts: Leonardo and Marrieta’s marriage was dissolved by reason of
psychologyical incapacity in 1996, hence Leonardo filed a complaint
for partition over their property consisting of a house and lot, since
according to him, there was no more reason to maintain their co-
ownership. In her defense, Marrieta claimed that the property had
been sold to their children Joseph Raymond and Joseph Leo. She
also moved for dismissal of the action for lack of jurisdiction on the
part of the MTCC Bacolod City, the action for partition being an
action incapable of pecuniary estimation. Per decision of the MTCC,
it ruled in favour of Marrietta and adjudicated the land to her, being
the spouse with whom the majority of the common children choose
to remain. It also awarded moral damages in favour of Marrieta.
Leonardo appealed the ruling to the RTC, which reversed the MTCC
ruling and ordered the partition of the property, hence Marrieta
appealed the RTC decision to the Court of Appeals by petition for
review. The appellate court denied Marietta’s appeal, ruling that
since the assessed value of the property is only P8,080.00, it clearly
fell within the MTCC jurisdiction. Though the RTC applied Art. 129
instead of Art. 147 thereof, it still correctly ordered the partition of the
property.
Marrieta elevated her case to the Supreme Court.
Held: The Supreme Court:
“Contrary to Barrido’s contention, the MTCC has jurisdiction to take
cognizance of real actions or those affecting title to real property, or
for the recovery of possession, or for the partition or condemnation
of, or foreclosure of a mortgage on real property. Section 33 of Batas
Pambansa Bilang 129 provides:
Section 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in civil cases. –
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
xxxx
(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title
to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the
assessed value of the property or interest therein does not exceed
Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro
Manila, where such assessed value does not exceed Fifty thousand
pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind,
attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs: Provided, That value
of such property shall be determined by the assessed value of the
adjacent lots. (as amended by R.A. No. 7691)
Here, the subject property’s assessed value was merely P8,080.00,
an amount which certainly does not exceed the required limit of
P20,000.00 for civil actions outside Metro Manila to fall within the
jurisdiction of the MTCC. Therefore, the lower court correctly took
cognizance of the instant case.
G.R. No. L-2352 July 26, 1910
ELADIO ALONSO, vs. TOMAS VILLAMOR, ET AL.,
Overview: Members of the municipal board of the municipality of
Placer (defendants) took from Father Alonso (plaintiff), priest in
charge, possession of the church and its appurtenances, and also all
of the personal property contained therein. Father Alonso then brought
an action to recover from the defendants the value of certain articles
from the church and the rental value of the premises during the
occupation of the defendants. LC decided in his favor. According to
the defendants-appellants, the church and the articles within it was
owned by the municipality as these were built and purchased by funds
voluntarily contributed by the people of the municipality. They also
claimed that Father Alonso was not a real party in interest. SC affirmed
the ruling of the LC saying that at the time of taking, the property in
question belonged to the Roman Catholic Church. SC also declared
that Father Alonso is not the real party in interest as he personally has
no interest in the cause of action. However, SC ordered that the action
be amended by substituting the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church in
the place and stead of Father Alonso as party plaintiff for the reason
that the amendment does not constitute change in the identity of the
parties but just a formal substitution.
Statement of the Case
The court below gave judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of
P1,581, with interest at 6% from the date of the judgment. Said sum
was made up of two items: (1) P741 – value of the articles taken from
the church; (2) P840 – rental value of the premises during the
occupation by defendants.
Statement of Facts
December 11, 1901: Defendants (Villamor, et. al) who were members
of the municipal board of the municipality of Placer addressed to the
plaintiff (Alonso, priest in charge of the church) a letter stating the
following:
We have received an order from the provincial fiscal which says: The Applicable Laws: Secs. 114, 110 and 503 of the Code of Civil
cemeteries, convents, and the other buildings erected on land Procedure (used in this case)
belonging to the town at the expense of the town and preserved by it
belong to the town, and for this reason the municipality is under the
obligation of administering them and of collecting the revenues Issues:
therefrom, and for this reason we notify you that from this date all of
the revenues and products therefrom must be turned into the treasury WON the church and its appurtenances, and personal property
of the municipality in order that the people may properly preserve contained therein belonged to the municipality of Placer (No)
them.
WON the plaintiff, R.P. Alonso, is the real party in interest (No)
We notify you that the image of St. Vicente which is now in the church,
WON the Court can substitute as party plaintiff the real party in interest
as it is an image donated to the people by its owner, by virtue of said
(Yes)
order is also the property of said people, and therefore the alms which
are given it by the devotees thereof must be also turned into the
municipal treasury for the proper preservation of the church and for
other necessary purposes. We hope that you will view in the proper Rationale
light and that you will deliver to the bearer of this letter the key of the
The property sued for was, at the time it was taken by the defendants,
alms box of the said image in order that we may comply with our
the property of the Roman Catholic Church, and that the seizure of the
obligation in conformity with the dispositions of said order.
same and occupation of the church and its appurtenances by the
December 13, 1901: Defendants took possession of the church and defendants were wrongful and illegal. The conclusions of the court
its appurtenances, and also all of the personal property contained below as to the value of the articles taken by the defendants and of
therein. The plaintiff protested against the occupation but his protests the rent of the church for the time of its illegal occupation by the
received no consideration so he was summarily removed from defendants were also correct and proper.
possession of the same. An action was brought by the plaintiff to
The Roman Catholic Church against the municipality of Placer
recover of the defendants the (1) value of certain articles taken from
(September 23, 1908): Court ruled that the property belonged to the
the church, and (2) the rental value of the church and its
Roman Catholic Church.
appurtenances, including the church cemetery from December 11,
1901 – April 1904. LC ruled in favor of the plaintiff. Barlin v Ramirez, Municipality of Ponce v Roman Catholic Apostolic
Church in Porto Rico
Defendants: (1) Plaintiff is not the real party in interest (Action should
have been in the name of the bishop of the diocese within the church It is undoubted that the bishop of the diocese or the Roman Catholic
was located, or in the name of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, Apostolic Church itself is the real party in interest. The plaintiff
as the real party in interest); (2) The church had been erected by funds personally has no interest in the cause of action.
voluntarily contributed by the people of the municipality, and that the
articles within the church had been purchased with funds raised in like Sec. 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure: Every action must be
manner, therefore, the municipality was the owner thereof. prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.
This Court has full power, apart from that power and authority which
is inherent, to amend the process, pleadings, proceedings, and
decision in this case by substituting, as party plaintiff, the real party in
interest. Not only are we confident that we may do so, but we are
convinced that we should do so.
Sec. 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure: Amendments in general. —
The court shall, in furtherance of justice, and on such terms, if any, as
may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding
and at any stage of the action, in either the Court of First Instance or
the Supreme Court, by adding or striking out the name of any party,
either plaintiff or defendant, or by correcting a mistake in the name of
a party, or a mistaken or inadequate allegation or description in any
other respect so that the actual merits of the controversy may speedily
be determined, without regard to technicalities, and in the most
expeditious, and inexpensive manner. The court may also, upon like
terms, allow an answer or other pleading to be made after the time
limited by the rules of the court for filing the same. Orders of the court
upon the matters provided in this section shall be made upon motion
filed in court, and after notice to the adverse party, and an opportunity
to be heard.
Sec. 503: Judgment not to be reversed on technical grounds. — No
judgment shall be reversed on formal or technical grounds, or for such
error as has not prejudiced the real rights of the excepting party.
Such an amendment does not constitute a change in the identity of
the parties.
The plaintiff asserts in his complaint, and maintains that assertion all
through the record, that he is engaged in the prosecution of this case,
not for himself, but for the bishop of the diocese—not by his own right,
but by right of another. He seeks merely to do for the bishop what the
bishop might do for himself. His own personality is not involved. His
own rights are not presented. He claims no interest whatever in the
litigation. He seeks only the welfare of the great church whose servant
he is. Gladly permits his identity to be wholly swallowed up in that of
his superior.
Formal substitution - Substitution so as to make the form express the
substance
No one is deceived for an instant as to whose interest are at stake.
The form of its expression is alone defective.
Form is a method of speech used to express substance and make it
clearly appear. It is the means by which the substance reveals itself.
If the form be faulty and still the substance shows plainly through no,
harm can come by making the form accurately expressive of the
substance.
No one has been misled by the error in the name of the party plaintiff.
If we should by reason of this error send this back for amendment and
new trial, there would be on the retrial the same complaint, the same
answer, the same defense, the same interests, the same witnesses,
and the same evidence. The name of the plaintiff would constitute the
only difference between the old trial and the new. In our judgment
there is not enough in a name to justify such action.
There is nothing sacred about processes or pleadings, their forms or
contents. Their sole purpose is to facilitate the application of justice to
the rival claims of contending parties. They were created, not to hinder
and delay, but to facilitate and promote, the administration of justice.
The error in this case is purely technical. To take advantage of it for
other purposes than to cure it, does not appeal to a fair sense of
justice. Technicality, when it desserts its proper office as an aid to
justice and becomes its great hindrance and chief enemy, deserves
scant consideration from courts. There should be no pvested rights in
technicalities. No litigant should be permitted to challenge a record of
a court of these Islands for defect of form when his substantial rights
have not been prejudiced thereby.
Judgment: Process, pleadings, proceedings and decision in this
action is amended by substituting the Roman Catholic Apostolic
Church in the place and stead of Alonso as party plaintiff. Decision of
the court below, so amended, is affirmed.