Title
Supreme Court
Mangaliag vs. Catubig-Pastoral
Case
G.R. No. 143951
Decision Date
Oct 25, 2005
A dump truck accident caused injuries; jurisdiction hinged on total damages claimed, including moral damages, exceeding MTC limits. SC upheld RTC jurisdiction.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 257446)

Factual Background

On May 10, 1999, Apolinario Serquina, Jr. filed a complaint for damages against Mangaliag and Solano, following a vehicular accident in San Carlos City, Pangasinan. The incident involved a dump truck owned by Mangaliag and driven by Solano sideswiping the tricycle that Serquina was occupying. The complaint outlined significant injuries, hospitalization costs amounting to P71,392.00, a claim for moral damages totaling P500,000.00, and loss of income of P25,000.00.

Motion to Dismiss and Court Orders

Petitioners filed an answer denying liability, attributing fault to the tricycle driver. Following the pre-trial and trial phases, petitioners submitted a motion to dismiss, contesting the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), asserting that the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) had jurisdiction due to that the claimed principal amount of damages did not exceed P200,000.00. The RTC Judge, Edelwina Catubig-Pastoral, issued orders denying the motion to dismiss, citing Administrative Circular No. 09-94, which emphasizes that the total amount claimed, including moral and other damages, should be considered in assessing jurisdictional limits.

Jurisdictional Issues and Legal Arguments

Petitioners argue that only the amount of actual damages should determine jurisdiction, thus asserting that the RTC erred in not dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction. They emphasized that moral damages claimed were ancillary and should not be considered in determining jurisdiction. In contrast, the private respondent contended that the claim for moral damages arises from a separate injury and must be included in the assessment of the court’s jurisdiction.

Estoppel and Court Hierarchy

The question of estoppel due to the petitioners’ active participation in the trial was raised, with respondent asserting that it precluded them from arguing lack of jurisdiction. However, jurisprudence states that objections to jurisdiction may be raised at any stage and that the court's lack of jurisdiction cannot be waived by active participation in proceedings. The doctrine of estoppel in such contexts is qualified and does not universally apply.

Legal Principles on Jurisdiction

Section 1 of Republic Act No. 7691 dictates exclusive jurisdiction for civil cases with claims exceeding P100,000.00, which was amended to P200,000.00 in relevant administrative circulars. The circular clarifies that when damages sought are the main cause of action, their inclusion is mandated for jurisdictional determination.

Interpretation of Damages

The Court concluded that Serquina’s claims for actual and moral damages should not be viewed separately, as the latter

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.