G.R. No. L-23012 January 29, 1968
MIGUEL CUENCO, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and BISAYA LAND TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., respondents.
FACTS
The Republic of the Philippines filed a quo warranto petition (Civil Case No. 39766) in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila against Bisaya Land Transportation Co., Inc. (Bisaya) and its directors, including Miguel Cuenco, alleging various ultra vires and illegal acts. Miguel Cuenco filed an answer joining the petition and additionally filed a cross-claim against his co-directors to recover over P4,000,000 for the benefit of the corporation. After years of proceedings, the CFI, on December 3, 1963, granted Miguel Cuenco’s motion for the appointment of a receiver. Bisaya challenged this order by filing a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction (CA-G.R. No. 33266-R) in the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals issued an ex parte writ of preliminary injunction against the CFI’s receivership order and later rendered a decision annulling said order. Miguel Cuenco then filed the present original petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court to annul the Court of Appeals’ writ and, subsequently via a supplemental petition, its decision, arguing that the Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction because his cross-claim, involving over P4,000,000, placed the case beyond the appellate court’s original jurisdiction.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to entertain the petition for certiorari (CA-G.R. No. 33266-R) and issue the assailed writ of preliminary injunction and decision, considering that the main quo warranto case in the CFI involved a cross-claim for over P4,000,000.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court annulled the writ of preliminary injunction and the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the jurisdiction of a court is determined by the allegations of the complaint or petition and the relief sought. In the quo warranto case before the CFI, Miguel Cuenco’s cross-claim sought the recovery of more than P4,000,000. Regardless of the propriety or validity of this cross-claim, its monetary value brought the subject matter of the case beyond the original jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals and within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Court of Appeals acted without jurisdiction in taking cognizance of CA-G.R. No. 33266-R, and all its proceedings therein, including the issuance of the writ and the rendition of the decision, were null and void ab initio. The Supreme Court made permanent its own preliminary injunction restraining the enforcement of the Court of Appeals’ writ.