G.R. No. L-26816 February 28, 1967
PABLO DE JESUS, ENGRACIA DE JESUS and MANUELA DE JESUS, petitioners, vs. HON. GREGORIO N. GARCIA, Judge of the City Court of Manila, Branch I, THE SHELL COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES, LTD., MAXIMA DE JESUS and SALVADOR BARRIOS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Pablo, Engracia, and Manuela de Jesus are co-owners, along with respondent Maxima de Jesus and others, of six parcels of land in Manila leased to The Shell Company of the Philippines, Ltd. Maxima de Jesus acted as the administratrix and attorney-in-fact for the co-owners, with a stipulated compensation of 10% of the rentals collected. The lease was renewed in 1966, increasing the monthly rental. Shell paid the rental by issuing a check in the name of Maxima de Jesus, who would then deduct her 10% and distribute the shares. In October 1966, petitioners instructed Shell to pay their shares directly to them, thereby depriving Maxima de Jesus of her 10% compensation. Maxima de Jesus, assisted by her husband Salvador Barrios, filed a complaint in the City Court of Manila against petitioners and Shell, praying for a writ of preliminary and final prohibitory injunction to prevent Shell from changing the present “forma de pago” (manner of payment) and to order petitioners to pay her the 10% compensation. The respondent judge issued an ex-parte writ of preliminary injunction. Petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint and dissolve the injunction, arguing lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter and the City Court’s lack of power to issue injunctions. Their motion was denied, prompting this original action for certiorari and prohibition.

ISSUE

1. Whether the City Court of Manila had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint.
2. Whether the City Court of Manila had the power to issue a writ of preliminary or final injunction.

RULING

1. On Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter: The Supreme Court ruled that the City Court of Manila had NO JURISDICTION. Jurisdiction is conferred solely by the Constitution or statute and cannot be fixed by the parties or the court. Examining the complaint’s averments as a whole, the action was one for specific performance of a contract—to compel Shell to maintain the payment method and to compel petitioners to recognize Maxima de Jesus as administratrix and pay her 10% compensation. An action for specific performance is not capable of pecuniary estimation and falls under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance pursuant to Section 44(a) of the Judiciary Act of 1948. The fact that the immediate monetary claim involved only P185.08 monthly did not convert the action into one capable of pecuniary estimation, as that payment was merely a consequence of the primary relief of specific performance sought. Following the precedent in Manufacturer’s Distributors, Inc. vs. Yu Siu Liong, the Court held that the City Court lacked jurisdiction.
2. On the Power to Issue Injunction: The Supreme Court ruled that the City Court of Manila had NO POWER to issue the writ of preliminary injunction. The Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended, which governed the jurisdiction of city courts, did not grant them the authority to issue writs of injunction. Such authority was expressly vested only in the Courts of First Instance under Section 44(h) of the same Act. The respondent judge therefore acted in excess of jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ.
The Supreme Court granted the petition, making the cease-and-desist order permanent, and declared the proceedings in the City Court null and void for lack of jurisdiction.