G.R. No. L-11425; February 27, 1957
JOVENCIO A. REYES and MARIA G. REYES, petitioners, vs. HON. NICASIO YATCO, as Judge of Branch V, Quezon City, Rizal Court of First Instance, FIDEL VILLANUEVA and MANUEL VILLANUEVA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Jovencio A. Reyes and Maria G. Reyes initially filed a single complaint in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City Branch, against respondent Fidel Villanueva (later amended to include Manuel Villanueva) to recover money based on two separate promissory notes for P2,000 each, without interest, damages, or attorney’s fees (Civil Case No. Q-1553). The court dismissed this case without prejudice due to misjoinder of action and lack of jurisdiction, as the claim against each defendant did not exceed P2,000. Petitioners did not appeal this dismissal. Subsequently, petitioners filed two separate actions in the same court: one against Manuel Villanueva and another against Fidel Villanueva (Civil Case Nos. Q-1929 and 1930). In each new complaint, they claimed P3,500, itemized as P2,000 on the promissory note, P1,000 as moral damages, and P500 as attorney’s fees. Respondents again moved to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the inclusion of damages and attorney’s fees—which were not stipulated in the notes—was a mere ploy to elevate the claims to the court of first instance’s jurisdiction, and that the cases properly fell under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the municipal court. The respondent Judge granted the motions and dismissed the two cases. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting them to file this petition for certiorari to set aside the dismissal orders.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the two actions on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, considering that each complaint alleged a total claim of P3,500, which included amounts for moral damages and attorney’s fees not stipulated in the promissory notes.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the orders of the respondent Judge. The Court held that petitioners were not barred from claiming moral damages and attorney’s fees despite the absence of stipulation in the promissory notes. Under the new Civil Code, a creditor may claim other damages in addition to interest (Articles 2196 and 2197), with the award left to the court’s discretion (Article 2216). Similarly, attorney’s fees may be recovered in the absence of stipulation when the defendant’s act compels the plaintiff to litigate (Article 2208, paragraph 2). The Court ruled that whether these claims were justified was a matter for determination on the merits during trial, not at the dismissal stage. Therefore, the inclusion of these claims was not capricious or merely jurisdictional, and the total amount claimed in each case (P3,500) properly fell within the jurisdiction of the court of first instance. The Court did not address the procedural propriety of the certiorari petition, as the main opinion focused on the merits of the jurisdictional issue. (A dissenting opinion by Justice Bengzon, concurred in by Justice Padilla, argued that certiorari was improper because the dismissal order was appealable and that the real issue—whether the claims for damages and attorney’s fees were a sham to confer jurisdiction—involved a factual finding not reviewable in a special civil action.)