BENIGNO C. GUTIERREZ, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. LAUREANO JOSE RUIZ, ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

On or about September 14, 1950, Laureano Jose Ruiz instituted, in
the Municipal Court of Manila, civil case No. 13038 of said court,
against Benigno C. Gutierrez.

In the complaint, Ruiz prayed for judgment:

“(a) Sentencing the defendant to pay to the
plaintiff the sum of P2,000, the full amount of the aforequoted
promissory note, together with legal interest thereon from March 1,
1950, the date of extra-judicial demand, until fully paid, the same
corresponding to the purchase price of the land above-described which
should be paid even if the suspensive condition for the payment of the
said promissory note is not deemed fulfilled by reason of the alleged
facts in paragraph 5 hereof;

“(b) sentencing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the amount of P700 as consequential damages and the costs of this suit; and

“(c)
granting unto the plaintiff such general relief which this Court may
deem just and equitable under the above premises.” (Pp. 3 and 4,
Exhibit A.)

On October 20, 1950, decision was rendered by said court, presided over by Honorable Guillermo Cabrera, Judge reading:

“Upon this case being called for hearing this
morning, at 10:10 o’clock, the plaintiff appeared by his attorney. The
defendant did not show up, notwithstanding the fact that according to
the records of the case, he was duly notified of said hearing, and,
upon the application of plaintiff’s attorney, said defendant was
declared in default.

“On the oral and documentary evidence
adduced by the plaintiff in support of the complaint, judgment is
hereby rendered for the plaintiff and against the defendant by default,
ordering the latter to pay the plaintiff the sum of P2,000, together
with legal interest thereon from March 1, 1950 until fully paid, plus
the sum of P700 by way of damages, and besides the costs of this suit.”
(Exhibit B.)

On appeal to the Court of First Instance of Manila— where the case
was docketed as civil case No. 12719 of said court—Gutierrez assailed
the validity of said decision, upon the ground that the amount involved
in the litigation exceeds the jurisdiction of the municipal court, but
this pretense was not sustained by the court of first instance, which
“declared that the decision of the municipal court in said case No.
13038 had already become final and executory,” as alleged in paragraph
(4) of the amended complaint of Gutierrez in civil case No. 13614 (of
the Court of First Instance of Manila—to which we shall presently refer—and
admitted by Ruiz in paragraph (2) of his answer in the same case.
Thereafter, Ruiz petitioned for a writ of execution, which was issued
by Judge Cabrera and which the Sheriff of Manila sought to enforce, by
levying upon several properties of Gutierrez. Hence, on April 6, 1951,
the latter commenced in the Court of First Instance of Manila said
civil case No. 13614 thereof, against Ruiz, Judge Cabrera and the
Sheriff of Manila. On April 10, 1951, said court issued a writ of
preliminary injunction, enjoining the defendants from executing the
decision of the Municipal Court in civil case No. 13038. In his amended
complaint, dated April 14, 1951, Gutierrez prayed the Court of First
Instance of Manila, in said case No. 13614.

“1. To render judgment declaring the judgment of the
Municipal Court of the City of Manila, in said Civil Case No. 13038,
null and void in that the Municipal Court of the City of Manila does
not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action;

“2.
To render judgment for damages in the amount Five Thousand Pesos
(P5,000) against the defendants Laureano Jose Ruiz, Guillermo Cabrera,
jointly and severally.

“3. To render judgment against the
Sheriff of the City of Manila in the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos
(P10,000) plus the amount of One Hundred Pesos (PI00) every day from
and after April 10, 1951, as damages suffered by the plaintiff herein
for the unwarranted and uncalled for refusal of said defendant Sheriff
of the City of Manila to obey the writ of preliminary injunction issued
in the above entitled case; plaintiff also further prays for costs and
for any other relief as this Court may deem just and equitable.” (Pp. 6
and 7, Record on Appeal.)

In due course, the court of first instance, presided over by
Honorable Demetrio Encarnacion. Judge, rendered a decision in said case
No. 13614, the pertinent parts of which read:

“En sintesis, se trata de conseguir un remedio de
este juzgadb para anular lo actuado por el Juzgado Municipal, presidido
entonces por el Hon. Guillermo Cabrera, bajo el fundamento de que la
decision en aquella causa se dicto sin jurisdiccion ordinaria ba.io la
Ley Judicial No. 296 de la Republica de Filipinas. Segun la parte
demandante, la jurisdiccidn del Juzgado Municipal llegaba solamente a
P2,000.00 en asuntosi civiles, pero habiendose pedido eh la misma
demanda P700.00 de danos, ademas de la cantidad principal y costas, se
contiende en la demanda que la accidn estaba fuera de la jurisdiccion y
competencia de dicho Juzgado Municipal. El Juez Cabrera desatendi6 esta
cuesti6n de jurisdicci6n y dict6 sentencia condenando al demandado,
Benigno C. Gutierrez, hoy recurrente en esta accion. Como consta en
autos, una vez dictada la sentencia por el Juzgado Municipal el 20 de
Octubre de 1950, tal decision fue apelada por el demandado ante este
Juzgado, pero en apelacion este Juzgado superior desestimo la cuesti6n
planteada sobre la falta de jurisdicci6n del Juzgado Municipal en la
causa civil No. 12719, sosteniendo la legalidad de la decisi6n del
Juzgado Municipal antedicha y hasta su jurisdiccidn. Y esta decision
del Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Manila quedo firme.

“Con
vista de estos datos, el Juzgado entiende y asi opina, que la presente
accion carece de base habiendo quedado firme la decision del Juzgado de
Primera Instancia en la causa civil No. 12719, arriba mencionada, dicho
se esta que esta accidn es insostenible. Seria multiplicar litigios y
repetir los mismos a pesar de haber pasado al estado de cosa juzgada,
como es asf el presente litigio. Ademas, sin necesidad de tocar la
cuestion vital, este Juzgado es de opinion que la adicidn de P700.00 de
danos a la suma principal reclamada en la demanda, no afectaba ni
podria afectar la jurisdiccion y competencia del Juzgado Municipal,
porque los danos son accesorios y contingentes y no determinan la
jurisdiccion de un juzgado.

“Por todo lo expuesto, el Juzgado ordena el sobresimiento de la presente causa, con costas al demandante” (Record on Appeal, pp. 25-26.)

Said case No. 13614 is now before us as case G. R. No. L-7045, on
appeal taken by Gutierrez from said decision of Judge Encarnacion.

The first question for determination by this Court is whether or not
the municipal court had jurisdiction over the subject matter of case
No. 13038. The pertinent portions of sections 44 and 88 of Republic Act
No. 296, otherwise known as the Judiciary Act of 1948, are quoted
hereunder:

“SEC. 44. Original jurisdiction.—Courts of First Instance shall have original jurisdiction:

* * * * * * *

“(c) In all cases in which the demand, exclusive of
interest, or the value of the property in controversy, amounts to more
than two thousand pesos;”

* * * * * * *

“SEC. 88 * * * In all civil actions, including those
mentioned in Rules 59 and 62 of the Rules of Court, arising in his
municipality or city, and not exclusively cognizable by the Court of
First Instance, the justice of the peace and the judge of a municipal
court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction where the value of the
subject-matter or amount of the demand does not exceed two thousand
pesos, exclusive of interest and costs. * * *

Referring, particularly, to the Municipal Court of Manila, section
39 of Republic Act No. 409, which is the Revised Charter of the City of
Manila, declares, that:

“The municipal court shall have the same
jurisdiction in civil and criminal cases and the same incidental powers
as at present conferred by law upon the justice of the peace courts
except those in conflict with the provisions of this Charter and such
additional jurisdiction and powers as may be conferred upon it by this
Charter or by special law. * * *.” (2nd par., Sec. 39.)

Pursuant to these provisions, the Municipal Court of Manila has the
same juridiction as justice of the peace courts under Republic Act No.
296. The latter’s original jurisdiction, as regards civil cases capable
of pecuniary estimation, is limited to those in which “the value of the
subject-matter or amount of the demand does not exceed two thousand
pesos, exclusive of interest and costs” In the complaint filed in civil
case No. 13038 of the municipal court, Ruiz sought to collect the sum
of P2,000, with interest thereon from March 1, 1950, plus P700 as
consequential damages, and costs. In other words, “the amount of the
demand,” exclusive of, and in addition to, interest and costs,
aggregated P2,700. It is clear, therefore, that the municipal court had
no jurisdiction to decide said case on the merits, and that its
decision granting said demand is null and void.

The next question for determination is whether the action taken by
the court of first instance in case No. 127129, on appeal from said
decision of the municipal court, is a bar to the present case.
Defendant-appellee, Ruiz, and the decision appealed from, maintain an
affirmative answer, upon the ground that the legality of the decision
of the municipal court in case No. 13038, had been upheld already in
the “decision” of the Court of First Instance of Manila in case-No.
12719; that the latter “decision” has become final and executory; that,
consequently, the issue on the legality of the decision of the
municipal court has thus been definitely settled; and that it may no
longer be determined in the present case under the principle of res
adjudicata. This view is untenable for:

(1) In Case No. 12719 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, the
same held that the decision of the municipal court had already become final and executory. Accordingly, the former court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
It had no authority, therefore, to pass upon the legality of the
decision of the municipal court and any finding made thereon by said
court of first instance was null and void. Indeed, it has not been
proven that said court had rendered a decision in case No. 12719. And,
considering that it found the decision of the municipal court to be
final and executory, the court of first instance must have issued
merely an order of dismissal of the appeal. This is borne out
by the fact that the court of first instance did not pass upon the
merits of the claim of Ruiz for P2,700, plus interest and costs. Hence,
the writ of execution issued by the municipal court sought to enforce
its own decision, not that of the court of first instance.
Had the appeal from the decision of the municipal court been reasonably
perfected. however, said decision of the municipal court would have
been vacated and the court of first instance would have had to render a
new decision, and even if the latter were, in effect, confirmatory of
the former, the one to be executed would have been the decision of the
court of first instance, not that of the municipal court, which would
exist no longer.

(2) If the appeal from the decision of the municipal court had been
perfected in due time, the court of first instance would have had no
authority over the case except to dismiss the same, for want of
jurisdiction of the municipal court, for which reason the court of
first instance could not have exercised appellate
jurisdiction over the case. This court could not have even exercised
its original jurisdiction, inasmuch as Gutierrez had impliedly objected
thereto by questioning the legality of the decision of the municipal
court. In other words, the decision of the court of first instance, had
it rendered one in case No. 12719, sustaining the legality of the
decision of the municipal court, would have been as null and void as
the latter, for lack of jurisdiction therefor.

Referring now to the claim of plaintiff-appellant, Gutierrez, for
damages, the evidence on record does not suffice to warrant a judgment
thereon in his favor.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed and another
one shall be entered declaring that the aforementioned decision of the
Municipal Court of Manila in Civil Case No. 13038 thereof is null and
void, without special pronouncement as to costs.

Paras, C. J., Pablo, Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista Angelo, and Labrador, JJ., concur.