GR L 22706; (March, 1969) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-22706 March 28, 1969
JOAQUIN UYPUANCO, YANG SEPENG and ESTEBAN UY, petitioners, vs. HON. JOSE N. LEUTERIO as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, and STATE FINANCING CORPORATION, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners were defendants in Civil Case No. 51046 before the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila, Branch II, presided by respondent Judge Jose N. Leuterio. The plaintiff, respondent State Financing Corporation, filed the complaint on July 25, 1962, for collection of P5,663.50, exclusive of interest and costs. While the case was pending and after issues were joined, Republic Act No. 3828 was enacted on June 22, 1963. This law gave municipal and city courts exclusive jurisdiction over cases where the demand does not exceed P10,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and gave CFIs original jurisdiction only where the demand exceeds P10,000. On December 18, 1963, petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the case on the ground that the CFI of Manila no longer had jurisdiction. The respondent Judge denied the motion on December 21, 1963, and also denied a motion for reconsideration on January 30, 1964. Petitioners then filed the present petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction, alleging the respondent Judge would continue trying the case without jurisdiction and that there was no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. This Court issued a preliminary injunction on April 16, 1964.
ISSUE
Whether or not the respondent Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila had jurisdiction to try Civil Case No. 51046, which was pending before his court when Republic Act No. 3828 was enacted.
RULING
The petition is dismissed. The respondent Judge retained jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled that the jurisdiction of a court is determined by the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action, and that jurisdiction once acquired continues until the case is finally terminated. The Court cited the analogous case of Republic vs. Central Surety and Insurance Company, where it was held that a trial court’s jurisdiction, acquired when the complaint was filed prior to the effectivity of Republic Act No. 3828, continues even after the new law took effect. The fact that summons was served and the case was heard after the effectivity of the new law does not divest the court of its jurisdiction. The writ of preliminary injunction issued by the Court was dissolved, and the court a quo was ordered to proceed with the trial. Costs were imposed on petitioners.