G.R. No. L-18776. January 30, 1964.
URBANO SAPICO, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. MANILA OCEANIC LINES, INC., ET AL., defendants, MANILA OCEANIC LINES, INC., defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The plaintiffs, comprising the officers and crew of a vessel, filed a complaint against Manila Oceanic Lines, Inc. to recover various sums. The complaint contained three causes of action: first, for the collection of unpaid wages totaling P24,570.76; second, for moral damages amounting to P111,000.00, with specific amounts allocated per rank (e.g., P10,000 for the Master); and third, for attorney’s fees of P5,000.00. The total aggregate claim exceeded P140,000. The defendant-appellant contested the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance (CFI) where the action was instituted.
The appellant argued that if the total claim were divided equally among the 38 crew members, the individual share would only be approximately P3,699.23, an amount purportedly below the jurisdictional threshold of the CFI. This calculation, however, was based on a pro-rata division of the entire claim, ignoring the structure of the pleaded causes of action, particularly the distinct and separate claim for moral damages made by the ship’s captain.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance had jurisdiction over the case, considering the appellant’s contention that the per-plaintiff claim, if averaged, fell below the court’s jurisdictional amount.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the CFI’s jurisdiction. The legal logic rests on the principle that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint and the nature of the relief sought, not by a subsequent pro-rata computation by the defendant. The complaint clearly alleged a second cause of action wherein the ship’s captain individually demanded P10,000.00 in moral damages, plus his unpaid wages. This specific claim, standing alone, exceeded the jurisdictional amount required for the CFI to take cognizance of the case at the time. Since the complaint contained at least one cause of action where an individual plaintiff’s claim met the jurisdictional requirement, the CFI properly acquired jurisdiction over the entire case, including the claims of the other crew members. The Court found the appellant’s averaging method to be legally erroneous, as it improperly conflated separate and distinct causes of action into a single averaged sum. Therefore, the appeal on jurisdictional grounds was without merit, and the CFI’s decision was upheld.