GR 84330; (May, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 84330 ; May 8, 1991
RAMON Y. ASCUE, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and RAMON ANTONIO, SALVADOR SALENGA and ULIPIA FERNANDEZ, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondents, as lessees of petitioner, filed a complaint for consignation with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila. They alleged that petitioner refused to accept their rental payments for May to July 1986, aggregating P5,625.00, and sought judicial authority to deposit said amount. Petitioner moved to dismiss the complaint, contending that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) had exclusive jurisdiction over consignation cases as the subject matter is incapable of pecuniary estimation. The MeTC denied the motion, ruling it had jurisdiction since the amount consigned was below P20,000.00 and that a motion to dismiss was a prohibited pleading.
Petitioner appealed the MeTC order to the RTC. The RTC dismissed the appeal as premature, holding that the proper remedy was a special civil action for certiorari. Petitioner subsequently elevated the matter to the Supreme Court via a petition (G.R. No. 78438), which was referred to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. 12765, affirmed the RTC’s dismissal. Petitioner then filed the instant petition for review on certiorari ( G.R. No. 84330 ) assailing the appellate court’s decision.
ISSUE
Whether the Metropolitan Trial Court had jurisdiction over the complaint for consignation where the amount sought to be deposited is P5,625.00.
RULING
Yes, the Metropolitan Trial Court correctly exercised jurisdiction. The Supreme Court rejected petitioner’s theory that a consignation case is incapable of pecuniary estimation and thus within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC. The Court elucidated that consignation is an action to deposit a sum due after a creditor refuses acceptance; it is essentially a form of payment. The subject matter is the determinate amount of the debt sought to be consigned, which is inherently capable of pecuniary estimation. Consequently, jurisdiction is determined by the value of the amount consigned pursuant to Section 33(1) of B.P. Blg. 129. Since the amount of P5,625.00 was within the MeTC’s jurisdictional limit (not exceeding P20,000.00 at the time), the MeTC properly took cognizance of the case. The Court found no reversible error in the appellate court’s affirmance of the RTC’s dismissal of the appeal, which was correctly deemed premature as an interlocutory order denying a motion to dismiss is not appealable. The petition was denied.