JOAQUIN UYPUANCO, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. EQUITABLE BANKING CORPORATION, ET AL., RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES.

Appeal certified to this Court by the Court of Appeals as
involving a question of jurisdiction of an inferior court (Judiciary Act,
section 17).

The Equitable Banking Corporation, a domestic bank, had sued
Joaquin Uypuanco, Mariano Mabasa,
and the Traders Insurance and Surety Co. in the Municipal Court of Manila.  In the complaint it was alleged:

“2.  That on June 5, 1957, the defendants obtained
by way of loan from the plaintiff the sum of FIVE THOUSAND (P5,000.00) PESOS,
Philippine Currency, promising jointly and severally to pay the same Ninety
days (90) after date , with interest thereon at ten (10%) percentum
per annum, of which amount there still remains an outstanding balance of FOUR
THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED (P4,500.00) PESOS TOGETHER WITH TEN (10%) per centum of
the amount due, in case the collection
of said indebtedness is made by or through an attorney-at-law, as set forth in
the promissory note, executed by said defen­dants on said date, a true copy of
which is hereto attached and made as an integral part hereof as Annex
“A”.

“3.  That the above-mentioned sum of P4,500.00 due
and payable to plaintiff on the promissory note, Annex “A”, is now
long overdue and the defendants have failed and refused, and still fail and
refuse to pay the same, or any portion thereof , despite repeated demands upon
them to do so;

“4.  That because of defendant’s failure and re­fusal
to satisfy plaintiff’s plainly valid, just and demandable claim, plaintiff was
compelled to retain the services of the undersigned counsel to enforce the collection of the above-said obligation and said
defendants have therefore incurred a further liability of ten (10) per centum
of the whole amount due and payable to the plaintiff on the promissory note,
Annex “A”, for attorney’s fees, as stipulated therein”.

Prayer was for judgment
against defendants in the sum of P4,500.00, with
interest at 10% per annum; plus interest on the accrued interest; and 10% of
the entire amount payable by way of attorney’s fees.

The municipal court heard the plaintiff ex parte because defendants failed to appear at the
hearing and decided in favor of the plaintiff. 
The latter then moved for execution. 
At the hearing of the motion, Joaquin Uypuanco
opposed the issuance of the writ on the ground that the municipal court had no
jurisdiction over the case.  The
opposition was overruled, and a writ of execution was issued.

Uypuanco recoursed
on certiorari and prohibition to the
Court of First Instance of Manila, urging that the complaint had claimed, in
addition to the basic debt of P4,500.00, ten per cent due in case the
collection was done through counsel (paragraph 2) and “a further
liability” of 10% of the whole amount due (paragraph 4); that all these
amounts put together totalled more than P5,000.00
(excluding interest and costs), which was the upper limit of the municipal
court’s jurisdiction under Republic Act 2613, then the law in force.

The court of first instance rejected the petition, asserting that
the complaint only demanded collection of P4,500.00,
plus 10% attorney’s fees, or P4,950.00, exclusive of interest and costs, and
said amount was within the jurisdiction of the inferior court.  Not content, Uypuanco
appealed to the Court of Appeals, and the latter certified the case to this
Supreme Court.

The appeal is absolutely devoid of merit.  A mere reading of the essential allegations
of the complaint, transcribed at the beginning of this opinion, reveals that
paragraph 2 thereof avers the sums due under the terms of the promissory note,
while paragraphs 3 and 4 allege the actual amounts due by reason of the
defendants’ failure to comply with their obligation.  The claim under paragraphs 3 and 4 is the
same one averred under paragraph 2 to wit: 
P4,500.00, as balance due on the principal, and
10% thereof as attorney’s fees, or a total of P4,950.00, as correctly declared
by the court of first instance.  The ten
per centum alleged in paragraph 4 of the complaint is the same one referred to
in paragraph 2, and not an additional amount, as contended by appellant.

This party lays much emphasis on the expression “incurred a further
liability of ten (10) per centum of the whole amount due and payable”; but
this “further liability” must be taken together with the averment of
paragraph 3 of the same complaint, that there is “P4,500.00
due and payable to plaintiff on the
promissory note”.  That is to say,
that besides the principal of P4,500.00 defendants
owed an additional (“further”) ten per cent for attorney’s fees.  By studiously omitting all reference to
paragraph 3, appellant and his counsel would make it appear that paragraph 4
demanded 10% over and above the ten per cent averred in paragraph 2, which is
not true.

The circumstances
surrounding this litigation definitely prove that appeal is frivolous and a
plain trick to delay payment and prolong litigation unnecessarily.  Such attitude deserves severe condemnation,
wasting, as it does, the time
that the courts could well devote to meritorious cases.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is affirmed, and
appellant’s counsel shall pay treble costs in all instances.  Let this decision be noted in the personal
record of the attorney for appellant in this Court for future reference.

SO ORDERED.

Dizon, Makalintal,
Zaldivar, Sanchez, Fernando, and Barredo, JJ.,
concur.

Concepcion, C.J., and Castro, J.,
on official leave.

Teehankee and Capistrano, JJ., took no part.