Title
Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 136109
Decision Date
Aug 1, 2002
RCPI sued for breach of lease; SC ruled RTC has jurisdiction as main action is specific performance, not pecuniary estimation.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 136109)

Procedural History

The case originates from a complaint filed by Manuel Dulawon against RCPI for breach of contract of lease with damages. The complaint was lodged with the Regional Trial Court of Tabuk, Kalinga, on June 18, 1997. RCPI moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing a lack of jurisdiction because the amount claimed (P84,000.00) did not exceed the jurisdictional threshold of P100,000.00 for Regional Trial Courts. The trial court denied this motion, which led RCPI to seek relief from the Court of Appeals. The appellate court dismissed RCPI’s petition on April 30, 1998, and subsequently denied the motion for reconsideration on October 15, 1998.

Jurisdictional Issue

The central issue is whether the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over the breach of contract complaint. The relevant provision under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 states that Regional Trial Courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions where the demand exceeds P100,000.00, excluding interest and costs. However, claims for damages incidental to the principal action are not included in determining jurisdiction unless the claim of damages constitutes the main cause of action.

Nature of the Complaint

Dulawon’s complaint clearly outlines a cause of action for breach of contract, citing specific details of the lease agreement, its terms, and the failure of RCPI to pay rental fees, which collectively suggest that the essence of Dulawon’s allegations focused on the enforcement of the lease agreement. The Court highlighted that the primary remedy sought is thus the specific performance of the lease contract.

Legal Principles on Jurisdiction

The decision referenced the distinction between actions primarily aimed at recovering sums of money versus those seeking specific performance, which are considered not capable of pecuniary estimation. In cases where the enforcement of a contract is the primary relief sought, any monetary claims are deemed incidental. This is aligned with jurisprudence indicating that the nature of the action determines jurisdiction irrespective of the claimed monetary value or other damages.

Court's Reasoning

The Court concluded that the complaint primarily sought specific performance of the lease agreement and that monetary claims for unpaid rentals only stemmed from this primary pursuit. As such, th

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.