G.R. No. 147058 ; March 10, 2006
DAVAO LIGHT & POWER CO., INC., Petitioner, vs. HON. JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT DAVAO CITY, BRANCH 8, ATTY. SERAFIN S. OSABEL, et al., Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. (DLPC) filed a collection case (Civil Case No. 3452-F-96) before the MTCC against Atty. Serafin Osabel and Alfredo Rubin. DLPC alleged that Rubin’s unpaid electric bills were transferred to Atty. Osabel’s account after Osabel purchased a property where Rubin’s service line was extended. Despite demands, Osabel refused payment and instead made consignments with the MTCC clerk of court for his current consumption. DLPC disconnected the service and removed the meter.
Subsequently, Atty. Osabel and his family filed a damages case (Civil Case No. 25,086-97) before the RTC against DLPC. They alleged three causes of action: damages for DLPC’s failure to give disconnection notices in February and December 1996; damages for the disconnection on February 6, 1997; and damages for the meter’s removal on February 21, 1997. They prayed for moral, nominal, and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. DLPC moved to dismiss the RTC case, arguing lack of jurisdiction (claiming the moral damages of P80,000 fell below the RTC threshold), lack of cause of action (contending the consignation was invalid and the Osabels were not real parties-in-interest as mere lessees), and that a valid consignation required a judicial action in the MTC. The RTC denied the motion, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court correctly denied DLPC’s Motion to Dismiss Civil Case No. 25,086-97.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court denied DLPC’s petition and upheld the RTC’s jurisdiction. On jurisdiction, the Court ruled that the RTC correctly took cognizance of the case. The complaint primarily sought damages, with the total claims for moral, nominal, and exemplary damages, plus attorney’s fees, constituting a personal action falling within the RTC’s general jurisdiction. The claim was not merely incidental to a consignation; it was an independent action for damages arising from alleged tortious acts.
On the ground of lack of cause of action, the Court held that a motion to dismiss based on this tests the sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint. The Osabels’ complaint adequately stated a cause of action by alleging that DLPC’s acts of disconnection without notice and the public removal of the meter violated their rights, causing them injury and entitling them to damages. The issue of whether the consignation was valid is a matter of defense requiring evidentiary proof, not a proper basis for dismissal at the pleading stage. The Court also noted that the defense of litis pendentia was raised for the first time on appeal and would not be considered. The RTC was ordered to proceed with the trial.