G.R. No. 143951, 25 October 2005
Posted by Rio Vie C. Dumalag | 25 July 2018
FACTS:
On January 21, 1999, from 9:00 to 10:00 a.m., private respondent Apolinario Serquina, together with Marco de Leon, Abner Mandapat and Manuel de Guzman, was on board a tricycle driven by Jayson Laforte. While in Pagal, San Carlos City, a dump truck owned by petitioner Norma Mangaliag and driven by her employee, petitioner Narciso Solano, coming from the opposite direction, tried to overtake and bypass a tricycle in front of it and thereby encroached the left lane and sideswiped the tricycle ridden by private respondent. Due to the gross negligence, carelessness and imprudence of petitioner Solano in driving the truck, private respondent and his co-passengers sustained serious injuries and permanent deformities. Petitioner Mangaliag failed to exercise due diligence required by law in the selection and supervision of her employee. As a result, private respondent was hospitalized and spent ₱71,392.00 as medical expenses. Private respondent sustained a permanent facial deformity due to a fractured nose and suffers from severe depression as a result thereof, for which he should be compensated in the amount of ₱500,000.00 by way of moral damages. As a further result of his hospitalization, private respondent lost income of ₱25,000.00 and even engaged the services of counsel on a contingent basis equal to 25% of the total award.
On July 21, 1999, petitioners filed their answer with counterclaim denying that private respondent has a cause of action against them. They attributed fault or negligence in the vehicular accident on the tricycle driver, Jayson Laforte, who was allegedly driving without license.
Subsequently, on March 8, 2000, petitioners, assisted by a new counsel, filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim, alleging that the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) has jurisdiction over the case since the principal amount prayed for, in the amount of ₱71,392.00, falls within its jurisdiction.
ISSUE:
Whether or not, the MTC or RTC has jurisdiction over the action.
HELD:
MTC. It is necessary to stress that generally a direct recourse to this Court is highly improper, for it violates the established policy of strict observance of the judicial hierarchy of courts. Although this Court, the RTCs and the Court of Appeals (CA) have concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction, such concurrence does not give the petitioner unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum. This Court is a court of last resort, and must so remain if it is to satisfactorily perform the functions assigned to it by the Constitution and immemorial tradition. Note also that the judicial hierarchy of courts is not an iron-clad rule. It generally applies to cases involving warring factual allegations. For this reason, litigants are required to repair to the trial courts at the first instance to determine the truth or falsity of these contending allegations on the basis of the evidence of the parties. Cases which depend on disputed facts for decision cannot be brought immediately before appellate courts as they are not triers of facts. Therefore, a strict application of the rule of hierarchy of courts is not necessary when the cases brought before the appellate courts do not involve factual but legal questions.
Private respondent argues that the defense of lack of jurisdiction may be waived by estoppel through active participation in the trial. Such, however, is not the general rule but an exception, best characterized by the peculiar circumstances in Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy. In Sibonghanoy, the party invoking lack of jurisdiction did so only after fifteen years and at a stage when the proceedings had already been elevated to the CA. Sibonghanoy is an exceptional case because of the presence of laches, which was defined therein as failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier; it is the negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert has abandoned it or declined to assert it.
Section 1 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7691, which took effect on April 15, 1994, provides inter alia that where the amount of the demand in civil cases exceeds ₱100,000.00, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs, the exclusive jurisdiction thereof is lodged with in the RTC. Under Section 3 of the same law, where the amount of the demand in the complaint does not exceed ₱100,000.00, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs, the exclusive jurisdiction over the same is vested in the Metropolitan Trial Court, MTC and Municipal Circuit Trial Court. The jurisdictional amount was increased to ₱200,000.00, effective March 20, 1999, pursuant to Section 5 of R.A. No. 7691 and Administrative Circular No. 21-99.
