GR L 26679; (April, 1969) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-26679; April 30, 1969
JOAQUIN UYPUANCO, petitioner-appellant, vs. EQUITABLE BANKING CORPORATION, ET AL., respondents-appellees.
FACTS
The Equitable Banking Corporation sued Joaquin Uypuanco, Mariano Mabasa, and Traders Insurance and Surety Co. in the Municipal Court of Manila to collect a loan. The complaint alleged that on June 5, 1957, the defendants obtained a loan of P5,000.00, with an outstanding balance of P4,500.00, plus interest at 10% per annum, and a stipulation for attorney’s fees of 10% of the amount due if collection was made through counsel. It further stated that due to the defendants’ failure to pay, the plaintiff was compelled to retain counsel, incurring a further liability of 10% of the whole amount due as attorney’s fees. The municipal court, after an ex parte hearing due to the defendants’ non-appearance, decided in favor of the plaintiff. When the plaintiff moved for execution, Uypuanco opposed, arguing that the municipal court lacked jurisdiction because the total claim exceeded P5,000.00, the jurisdictional limit under Republic Act 2613. The opposition was overruled, and a writ of execution was issued. Uypuanco then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of First Instance of Manila, which rejected it, holding that the claim was only for P4,500.00 plus 10% attorney’s fees (P4,950.00), within the municipal court’s jurisdiction. Uypuanco appealed to the Court of Appeals, which certified the case to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Municipal Court of Manila had jurisdiction over the case, considering the total amount claimed in the complaint.
RULING
Yes, the Municipal Court of Manila had jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that a reading of the complaint’s essential allegations showed that the claim was only for P4,500.00 as the balance due on the principal, plus 10% thereof as attorney’s fees, totaling P4,950.00, exclusive of interest and costs. The 10% attorney’s fees mentioned in paragraph 4 of the complaint was the same 10% referred to in paragraph 2, not an additional amount. The phrase “incurred a further liability” in paragraph 4 meant an additional amount (the attorney’s fees) besides the principal, not an extra 10% on top of another 10%. Therefore, the total claim was within the municipal court’s jurisdictional limit. The appeal was deemed frivolous and a trick to delay payment. The decision of the Court of First Instance was affirmed, with appellant’s counsel ordered to pay treble costs in all instances, and the decision was to be noted in the attorney’s personal record for future reference.