G.R. No. L-7024; May 26, 1954
ROMAN TOLSA, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE ALEJANDRO J. PANLILIO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila and ATAYDE BROTHERS AND COMPANY, respondents.

FACTS

A collision occurred in October 1948 between a truck owned by respondent Atayde Brothers and Company, driven by Elpidio Bamba, and a passenger bus owned by petitioner Roman Tolsa. Bamba was prosecuted and convicted in Criminal Case No. 8748 for damage to property through reckless imprudence. He was sentenced to pay a fine of P765 and to indemnify Tolsa in the same amount, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. The conviction was affirmed on appeal. Bamba failed to pay the indemnity and underwent subsidiary imprisonment due to insolvency. Tolsa then filed Civil Case No. 19557 in the Court of First Instance of Manila against Atayde Brothers and Company and Elpidio Bamba to recover P2,130, itemized as: P765 (indemnity from the criminal case), P98 (damage to a tire), P950 (consequential damages for lost income during bus repairs), and P200 (attorney’s fees). The court set the hearing for August 20, 1953. However, on August 5, 1953, respondent Judge Alejandro J. Panlilio dismissed the case motu proprio, without prejudice, on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction because the amount sought to be recovered was allegedly less than P2,000. Tolsa’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition for certiorari, alleging that the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion and in excess of jurisdiction.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, in dismissing Civil Case No. 19557 on the ground that the amount sought to be recovered was less than P2,000, thereby placing it under the jurisdiction of the Municipal Court.

RULING

The petition is granted. The Supreme Court, treating the petition for certiorari as one for mandamus, held that the respondent Judge erred in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction. The Court reiterated the established rule that what determines the jurisdiction of a court in civil cases is the amount sought to be recovered as alleged in the complaint, typically in the prayer, and not the amount that the plaintiff may ultimately be entitled to recover under the law or after trial. In this case, Tolsa’s complaint sought to recover P2,130, which is above the jurisdictional amount for the Court of First Instance. The Court cited the precedent of Lim Bing It vs. Hon. Fidel Ibañez, et al., 92 Phil., 799, where it was held that the amount claimed in the complaint controls jurisdiction. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the order of dismissal and directed respondent Judge Panlilio to reinstate Civil Case No. 19557 and proceed with its hearing. No costs were awarded.