FERMIN CASOCOT AND CEFERINA CASOCOT, FOR THEMSELVES AND IN BEHALF OF DENNIS CARMELO CASOCOT, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HONORABLE CIPRIANO V. VAMENTA, JR., DISTRICT, JUDGE, COURT OF F…

Casocot versus Vamenta

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by Fermin Casocot and Ceferina Casocot, for themselves and in behalf of their son Dennis Carmelo Casocot, against Judge Cipriano Vamenta, Junior, the District Judge of the Court of First Instance of Negros Oriental, and against the Ministry of Education and Culture and Division Superintendent Eladio Dioko. The petitioners complain that the respondent judge gravely abused his discretion in dismissing their action for damages arising from Article 27 of the New Civil Code, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The case matters because it clarifies the jurisdictional threshold for actions based on Article 27, and because it teaches that the plain allegations of the complaint, not the judge's suspicions, determine whether a court has jurisdiction over the subject matter.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed a complaint for damages in the Court of First Instance of Negros Oriental, presided over by the respondent judge. The respondent judge issued an order dated July 23, 1980 dismissing the complaint, and later issued orders dated September 1, 1980. The petitioners then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by a petition for certiorari and prohibition, asking that the orders of the respondent judge be set aside. In a resolution dated September 23, 1981, the Supreme Court denied the petition as against the Ministry of Education and Culture and Division Superintendent Eladio Dioko for lack of merit. The Court then resolved the petition as against the respondent judge in the decision now before us.

Facts

The petitioners are the parents of Dennis Carmelo Casocot, a pupil at the Bayawan East Central School. They alleged that their son was entitled to be designated first honors, and that the respondents committed malicious, unlawful, and deliberate acts that caused them tortured feelings, mental anguish, public contempt, and humiliation.

Before filing suit, the petitioners exhausted their administrative remedies. They appealed to respondent Division Superintendent Eladio Dioko, who, after consultation with the Regional Director of the Ministry of Education and Culture for Region 71, wired the District Supervisor of Bayawan East Central School that, as per Ministry of Education and Culture Order 17, series of 1978, petitioner Dennis Carmelo Casocot is entitled to and will be designated first honors.

The petitioners then filed a complaint for damages based on Article 27 of the New Civil Code. In their complaint, they alleged that the damages could be compensated in the amount of not less than 5,000 pesos for each of the petitioners, and that they had incurred expenses incidental to the action in an amount to be proved during trial, and that they were entitled to exemplary damages. The respondent judge dismissed the complaint, and the petitioners came to the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent judge had jurisdiction over the action for damages based on Article 27 of the New Civil Code, considering that the complaint prayed for damages exceeding 10,000 pesos.
• Whether or not the petitioners had exhausted their administrative remedies before filing the action.
• Whether or not the respondent judge gravely abused his discretion in dismissing the complaint.

Applicable Provisions

Article 27 of the New Civil Code provides:

Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.

This is the provision on which the petitioners based their complaint for damages, and it is the source of the cause of action that the respondent judge dismissed.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Supreme Court held that the respondent judge had jurisdiction over the action. The Court reasoned that the complaint is based on Article 27 of the New Civil Code, and that the petitioners' complaint obviously prays for damages in an amount exceeding 10,000 pesos, and therefore within the jurisdiction of the respondent trial court. The Court pointed to paragraph 7 of the petitioners' complaint, which alleges that the tortured feelings, mental anguish, public contempt and humiliation suffered by the petitioners by virtue of the malicious, unlawful and deliberate acts of the respondents can be compensated in the amount of not less than 5,000 pesos for each of the petitioners, and that the petitioners have incurred expenses incidental to the action in an amount to be proved during the trial, and are entitled to exemplary damages. These allegations, taken together, place the claim within the jurisdictional amount.

On the second issue, the Court held that the petitioners had exhausted their administrative remedies when they appealed to respondent Division Superintendent Eladio Dioko, who, after consultation with the Regional Director of the Ministry of Education and Culture for Region 71, wired the District Supervisor of Bayawan East Central School that, as per Ministry of Education and Culture Order 17, series of 1978, petitioner Dennis Carmelo Casocot is entitled to and will be designated first honors. This administrative step satisfied the requirement.

On the third issue, the Court held that the respondent judge gravely abused his discretion in dismissing the complaint. The Court set aside the orders of the respondent judge dated July 23, 1980, as well as the orders dated September 1, 1980, and directed the respondent judge to proceed with the trial of the case as against the respondents, except the Ministry of Education and Culture and Division Superintendent Eladio Dioko, in whose favor the petition was denied for lack of merit in the resolution of September 23, 1981.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate must retain these rules. First, jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations of the complaint, not by the judge's suspicions or by the amount ultimately proved. Where the complaint alleges damages exceeding the jurisdictional threshold, the court has jurisdiction. Second, an action for damages based on Article 27 of the New Civil Code is a distinct cause of action that may be brought in the regular courts, and the plaintiff need only allege the elements of the provision. Third, the exhaustion of administrative remedies is satisfied when the petitioner has appealed to the proper administrative officer and that officer has acted on the appeal. These rules are tied to the quoted Article 27, which makes any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy liable to compensate the latter for the damage.

Disposition

The Supreme Court granted the petition as against the respondent judge, set aside his orders dated July 23, 1980 and September 1, 1980, and directed him to proceed with the trial of the case against the respondents except the Ministry of Education and Culture and Division Superintendent Eladio Dioko, in whose favor the petition was denied for lack of merit.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations of the complaint, and a claim for damages exceeding the jurisdictional amount confers jurisdiction on the trial court. Examiners like to use this case to test the rule on jurisdiction based on the allegations of the complaint, and the requirement of exhaustion of administrative remedies in actions based on Article 27 of the New Civil Code.