G.R. No. 211089, July 11, 2023
SPOUSES DR. JOHN O. MALIGA AND ANNIELYN DELA CRUZ MALIGA, PETITIONERS, VS. SPOUSES ABRAHIM N. TINGAO AND BAI SHOR TINGAO, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 211135] SPOUSES DR. JOHN O. MALIGA AND ANNIELYN DELA CRUZ MALIGA, PETITIONERS, VS. DIMASURANG UNTE, JR., RESPONDENT.

FACTS

The Shari’ah District Court dismissed the complaints filed by petitioners, Dr. John O. Maliga and Annielyn Dela Cruz Maliga, against respondents. The Shari’ah District Court held that the parties entered into loan contracts with agreed interest rates. It noted that Presidential Decree No. 1083 (the Code of Muslim Personal Laws) does not contain provisions regarding transactions involving payment of interest (riba), unlike the Civil Code. While acknowledging that Islam prohibits riba, the court dismissed the cases for lack of jurisdiction, stating the proper court should apply the applicable laws.

ISSUE

Whether the Shari’ah District Court correctly dismissed the complaints for lack of jurisdiction on the grounds that PD No. 1083 has no provision on transactions involving interest (riba) and that other laws like the Usury Law should be applied by the proper court.

RULING

The Separate Concurring Opinion argues the Shari’ah District Judge erred in dismissing the complaints. First, jurisdiction, once acquired, is retained until the end of litigation; the applicable law or validity of the contract does not affect jurisdiction. Second, under Article 187 of PD No. 1083, the Civil Code and other existing laws apply suppletorily if not inconsistent. The Usury Law’s application is not inconsistent with PD No. 1083. Third, under Article 9 of the Civil Code, no judge shall decline to render judgment due to silence, obscurity, or insufficiency of the laws. Therefore, the Shari’ah District Judge should not have dismissed the complaints on that pretext. Furthermore, Shari’ah District Judges possess specialized expertise in Islamic law and jurisprudence, required to interpret the Qur’an and Sunnah, making them the proper forum to resolve cases invoking Islamic principles like the prohibition of riba, as petitioners did by invoking the Prophet Muhammad’s Last Sermon. The opinion concurs in granting the petitions, urging the legislature to address gaps in the Shari’ah legal framework concerning Islamic financial transactions.