G.R. No. L-22706. March 28, 1969
JOAQUIN UYPUANCO, YANG SEPENG AND ESTEBAN UY, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. JOSE N. LEUTERIO AS JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, AND STATE FINANCING CORPORATION, RESPONDE…
ZALDIVAR, J.:
Herein petitioners are the defendants in Civil Case No. 51046
entitled “State Financing Corporation versus Joaquin Uypuanco,
Yang Sepeng and Esteban Uy“,
in the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch II, presided by the respondent
Judge, the Hon. Jose N. Leuterio. The plaintiff in the case – herein respondent
State Financing Corporation – on July
25, 1962, filed a complaint against the defendants – herein
petitioners – for the collection of the sum of P5,663.50,
exclusive of interest and costs. While
the case was pending in the court below, and after the issues in the case had
been joined, Republic Act No. 3828 was enacted on June 22, 1963, giving the
municipal courts and city courts the exclusive jurisdiction to try cases in
which the value of the subject matter or amount of the demand does not exceed
ten thousand pesos, exclusive of interests and costs; and giving to Courts of
First Instance original jurisdiction in all cases in which the demand,
exclusive of interest, or value of the property in controversy amounts to more
than ten thousand pesos. On December 18, 1963, therein
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case upon the ground that the Court of
First Instance of Manila no longer had jurisdiction over the subject matter of
the case. The motion was denied by
respondent Judge on December 21, 1963
for lack of merit. A motion for
reconsideration filed on January 3,
1964 was also denied on January
30, 1964.
Alleging that the respondent Judge would continue trying the case
in spite of the fact that the Court of First Instance of Manila did not have
jurisdiction, and that there was no appeal, nor any plain, speedy and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law against the aforementioned orders of
respondent Judge, therein defendants filed before this Court the present
petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction praying,
among others, that a writ of preliminary injunction restraining the respondent
Judge from trying said Civil Case No. 51046 be issued, that the orders of
respondent Judge denying the motion to dismiss and the motion for
reconsideration be set aside, and that the court presided by respondent Judge
be declared without jurisdiction to try said civil case.
This Court issued the writ of preliminary injunction prayed for,
on April 16, 1964,
restraining the respondent Judge from trying Civil Case No. 51046 during the pendency of this case.
The only issue raised by petitioners is whether or not the
respondent Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila had jurisdiction to
try said Civil Case No. 51046, which was pending before his court when Republic
Act No. 3828 was enacted.
Incidentally herein respondents, in their answer, maintain that
petitioners’ motion to dismiss in the court below was correctly denied because
the motion to dismiss was filed out of time, it having been filed when the
issues had already been joined. This
contention of respondents is without merit.
It has been consistently held by this court that the question of
jurisdiction may be raised at any state of the proceedings.[1]
Anent the main issue, the rule is well settled that the
jurisdiction of a court is determined by the statute in force at the time of
the commencement of the action, and that jurisdiction once acquired continues
until the case is finally terminated.[2] A
case with facts more or less analogous to those of the instant case was
recently decided by this Court. In the
case of Republic of the Philippines
versus Central Surety and Insurance Company, et al.[3],
plaintiff-appellee’s demand was for P6,000.00, which amount, at the time of the filing of the
complaint on June 20, 1963,
under Section 44 (c) of Republic Act No. 296, was within the jurisdiction of
the Court of First Instance of Manila.
It was the contention of defendant-appellant that the Court of First
Instance of Manila lost jurisdiction over the subject matter when Republic Act
No. 3828 was approved on June 22, 1963,
and the case should have been remanded to the city court. In resolving this issue, on appeal, this
Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Fred Ruiz Castro, said:
“Upon the second issue, it is insisted that the trial court
had no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the action because the total
amount involved is only P6,000 (P5,000 under the bond and P1,000 as attorney’s
fees), a court of first instance being vested with jurisdiction only over cases
in which the demand, exclusive of interest, or the value of the property in
controversy, exceeds P10,000, pursuant to section 44 of Republic Act 296, as
amended by Republic Act 3828 which took effect on June 22, 1963. Although the present action was filed on June
20, 1963, two days before the effectivity of Republic
Act 3828 which broadened the jurisdiction of municipal and city courts to
include cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, or the value of the
property in controversy, does not exceed P10,000, it is nonetheless argued that
the court’s jurisdiction over the case was lost on June 22, 1963, when
Republic Act 3828 took effect, and therefore the case should have been remanded
to the municipal court.
“We disagree It is not disputed that the trial court acquired
jurisdiction over the subject-matter on June 20, 1963 when the complaint was filed with it. It is of no moment that summons was served
and that the case was heard and decided after the effectivity
of Republic Act 3828, because the rule is firmly entrenched in our law that
jurisdiction once acquired continues until the case is finally terminated.”[4]
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition
should be, as it is hereby dismissed, and the writ of preliminary injunction
issued by this Court on April 16, 1964
is dissolved. The court a quo
shall proceed to try its Civil Case No. 51046.
Costs against petitioners.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, JBL, Dizon, Makalintal, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro,
Fernando, Capistrano, Teehankee, and Barredo, JJ., concur.
[1]
People vs. Que Po Lang, 94 Phil. 640; Juanillo vs. De la Rama,
74 Phil. 43; Villa vs. Ibañez, et al., 88
Phil. 402; Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Villa, et al., L-23988,
January 2, 1968, 22 SCRA 3.
[2]
People vs. Fontanilla, L-25354, June 28, 1968;
Aquisap vs. Basilio
L-21293, Dec. 29, 1967; Macondray & Co. Inc., et
al. vs. Yangtze Ins. Ass’n. Ltd.,
et al., 51 Phil. 789, 794; Rilloraza vs. Arciaga, L-23848, Oct. 31, 1967;
People vs. Pegarum, 58 Phil. 715, 717.
[3]
G. R. No. L-27802, October 26, 1968.
[4]
Citing the cases of Pamintuan vs. Tigalo, 53 Phil. 1; Philippine Land-Air-Sea Labor Union
(PLASLU), Inc. vs. CIR, 93 Phil. 747; Tuvera vs.
de Guzman, L-20547, April 30, 1965; Rizal Surety,
Inc. vs. Manila Railroad Co., L-20875, April 30, 1966; Insurance Co. of
North America vs. U.S. Lines Co., et al., L-21021, May 27, 1966; and
People vs. Paderna, L-28518, Jan. 29, 1968, 1968A
PHILD 261, 22 SCRA 273.