REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESCOURT OF APPEALS

MANILA

NINTH DIVISION

BA SAVINGS BANK CA-G.R. NO. CV-81285(Formerly BA Finance Corporation), Plaintiff-Appellant, Members: CRUZ, E. P., Chairman

-versus- LAMPAS PERALTA, F. and PIZARRO, N. B., JJ.:

YOLANDA D. RAMOS and Promulgated:PANTALEON RAMOS, Defendants-Appellees. __________________x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

DECISION

LAMPAS PERALTA, J.:

Assailed in this appeal is the Resolution dated September 1, 20031 in Civil Case No. 3050-AF of Branch 28, Regional Trial Court, Cabanatuan City dismissing the amended complaint for “Replevin or Sum of Money” filed by plaintiff-appellant BA Savings Bank against defendants-appellees Yolanda Ramos and Pantaleon Ramos involving a vehicle which was the subject of a chattel mortgage executed by defendants-appellees in favor of plaintiff-appellant.2

1 pp. 96-97, Records2 pp. 47-50, Ibid.

CA-G.R. NO. CV-81285 2DECISIONx-------------------------------x

THE ANTECEDENTS

On March 23, 1998, plaintiff-appellant filed a complaint for “Recovery of Possession with Replevin,” alleging that (i) defendants-appellees secured a loan from plaintiff-appellant in the amount of P248,244.00 payable in 12 equal monthly installments of P20,687.00 starting June 20, 1997 and every 20th day of the month thereafter until full payment of the whole obligation, (ii) as security for the loan, defendants-appellees executed a deed of chattel mortgage over a vehicle described as an Isuzu Elf Dropside NPR57L/4BC2, and (iii) defendants-appellees failed to pay the outstanding balance in the amount of P185,854.65 or to deliver the vehicle to plaintiff-appellant despite the latter's demand.

On September 27, 2000, plaintiff-appellant filed a motion to amend complaint and an amended complaint, stating an alternative cause of action in the event that the chattel cannot be located or it be insufficient to satisfy plaintiff-appellant's claim. The amended complaint thus prayed for the payment of the unpaid obligation of P185,854.65, among others.3

In their answer4 to the amended complaint, defendants-appellees alleged that (i) the trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the amount involved, P185,854.65, was within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court, and (ii) replevin was no longer feasible as the subject vehicle could no longer be found.

For failure of defendants-appellees and their counsel to appear during the pre-trial conference, they were declared as in default and plaintiff-appellant was allowed to present its evidence ex-parte.5

3 p. 47, Ibid.4 pp. 54-57, Ibid.5 pp. 77 and 85, Ibid.

CA-G.R. NO. CV-81285 3DECISIONx-------------------------------x

Thereafter, the trial court issued a Resolution dated September 1, 20036 dismissing without prejudice the complaint for want of jurisdiction.

Plaintiff-appellant filed a motion for reconsideration of the Resolution dated September 1, 2003, but the trial court denied the same in an Order dated November 5, 2003.

Hence, this appeal,7 presenting its assignment of error as follows:8

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

The only issue in the above-entitled case may be stated as follows:

If the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over the case under the original complaint and later the complaint was amened to include an alternative cause of action and at the time of the filing of the amended complaint the Court no longer has jurisdiction considering the amount involved, may the court dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction?

THE ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court has lost jurisdiction over the case when the complaint was amended into one for “Replevin or Sum of Money”.

6 p. 96, Ibid.7 p. 105, Ibid.8 p. 19, Rollo

CA-G.R. NO. CV-81285 4DECISIONx-------------------------------x

THE COURT'S RULING

For clarity, the original complaint for “Recovery of Possession with Replevin,” filed on March 23, 1998, was later amended to one for “Replevin or Sum of Money,” filed on September 27, 2000. In its original complaint, plaintiff-appellant alleged that defendants-appellees secured a loan in the amount of P248,244.00 payable on monthly installment of P20,687.00 and defendants-appellees failed to pay the balance in the amount of P185,854.65. In its amended complaint, plaintiff-appellant further alleged that the property subject of the chattel mortgage cannot be found, thus it was also prayed in the alternative that defendant-appellee be ordered to pay the amount of P185,854.65 representing the unpaid balance of the obligation.

There is no question that at time of the filing of the original complaint on March 23, 1998, the amount of P185,854.65 representing the alleged unpaid obligation of defendants-appellees was within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court, pursuant to BP Blg. 129, as amended by RA No. 7691.9 However, in a Resolution dated September 1, 2003, after plaintiff-appellant had presented its evidence, the trial court dismissed the case on the ground that at the time of the filing of the amended complaint onSeptember 27, 2000, jurisdiction was vested in the MTC pursuant to Section 3, RA No. 7691.10 Said the trial court:

9 SEC. 19. Jurisdiction in Civil Cases. -- Regional Trial Courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction:

x x x x x x x x x(8) In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind,

attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs or the value of the property in controversy exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in such other cases in Metro Manila, where the demand, exclusive of the above mentioned item exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00).

10 SEC. 3. Section 33 of the same law is hereby amended to read as follows: x x x

SEC. 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Civil Cases. -- Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:

(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate proceedings, testate and intestate, including the grant of provisional remedies in proper cases, where the value of the personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does not exceed One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in Metro Manila where such personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does not

CA-G.R. NO. CV-81285 5DECISIONx-------------------------------x

Pursuant to Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended by Republic Act 7691 (An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, amending for the purpose BP Blg. 129 ) which took effect on April 15, 1994, the adjusted jurisdictional amount of the first level court is One Hundred Thousand (P100,000.00) Pesos and the same shall be adjusted to Two Hundred Thousand (P200,000.00) Pesos after five (5) years of its effectivity. (Section 5, R.A. 7691).11

The trial court erred in so ruling.

Jurisdiction, once acquired, is not lost upon the instance of the parties but continues until the case is terminated. Too-settled to require further elucidation is the rule that:

It has been ruled that where a court or tribunal has already obtained and is exercising jurisdiction over a controversy, its jurisdiction to hear the case until its final determination is not affected by new legislation vesting such jurisdiction in another tribunal, x x x.12

Moreover, the totality of the claims of plaintiff-appellant in its

amended complaint puts the case within the jurisdiction of the RTC. The alleged unpaid obligation of defendants-appellees is P185,854.65 but aside from this, plaintiff-appellant is also praying in its amended complaint liquidated penalty of 6% per month from September 1997 and 25% attorney's fees, among others. The totality of the claims necessarily exceeds P200, 000.00. Thus:

exceed Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00), exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind x x x.

11 p. 26, Rollo12 Alonto vs. People, 445 SCRA 624 [2004]

CA-G.R. NO. CV-81285 6DECISIONx-------------------------------x

ALTERNATIVE CAUSE OF ACTION

in the event that the chattel which is the subject of the mortgage cannot be located or if it be insufficient to satisfy the claim of the plaintiff;

b) To order the defendants to pay the plaintiff the sum of P185,854.65 plus liquidated penalty of 6% per month from September, 1997; in either case to pay attorney's fee equivalent to 25% of the total amount due and in addition thereto, to pay the expenses of collection and repossession, costs of this suit and other litigation expenses.13

As held in Enerio vs. Alampay, 64 SCRA 142 [1975]:

It is well settled and beyond question that the jurisdiction of a court over a case is determined by the allegations of the complaint, and since petitioners' complaint asserted a total demand, exclusive of interest of over P10,000.00 (and sought recovery of damages of close to P30,000.00) the case clearly falls within the original jurisdiction of respondent court of first instance as provided by section 44 of the Judiciary Act, Republic Act 296 as amended.

The totality of the demand in suits for recovery of sums of money between the same parties, i.e. the total or aggregate amount demanded in the complaint constitutes the basis of jurisdiction and for determining the jurisdictional amount in civil cases. Here petitioners' total claim of P978.00 for actual damages, P10,000.-moral damages, P15,000.-exemplary damages and P3,000.-attorney's fees, etc., was clearly in excess of P10,000.00 and therefore properly fell within the jurisdiction of respondent court of first instance. Respondent court could not arbitrarily isolate petitioners' lesser claim for actual

13 p. 49, Records

CA-G.R. NO. CV-81285 7DECISIONx-------------------------------x

damages and without hearing and proofs rule out petitioners' other claims for moral and exemplary damages as “bloated” and summarily dismiss motu proprio the case as not falling within its jurisdiction contrary to the very allegations on the face of the complaint.14

In Ratilla vs. Tapucar, 75 SCRA 64 [1977], it was also held that:

We hold that the dismissal is erroneous. From

Section 88 of the Judiciary Law, it is clear that where there are several claims between the same parties embodied in the same complaint, the totality of the claims supplies the jurisdictional test. The damages are included in the amount of the demand used as a basis for determining the court's jurisdiction.

Since the total demand in Ratilla's complaint exceeds P10,000, the case falls within the original, exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance. xxx

x x x x x x x x x

But to prejudge the merits of Ratilla's claim for damages, by dismissing his complaint, and to require him to refile the case in the municipal court of Bislig would not conduce to the expeditious administration of justice. The pragmatic solution, which is sanctioned by the rule that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations of the complaint and not by the amount ultimately proven and awarded by the trial court x x x, is to direct the lower court to try the case on the merits if no amicable settlement is reached by the parties.

14 Enerio vs. Alampay, 64 SCRA 142 [1975]

CA-G.R. NO. CV-81285 8DECISIONx-------------------------------x

It was also erroneous for the trial court to rule that “Section 7, of RA 769115 explicitly provides that this Act shall apply to all civil cases that have not yet reached the pre-trial stage” and that “by the express provision of the cited section, the instant case is no exception considering that this case did not reach the pre-trial stage and therefore, this court was divested of its jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter now pending before this Court.” It suffices to state that the present case already passed the pre-trial stage, as defendants-appellees were in fact declared as in default and plaintiff-appellant was allowed to present evidence ex-parte.

In sum, the trial court contravened the law and jurisprudence when it dismissed the subject amended complaint on ground of lack of jurisdiction.

WHEREFORE, the appealed Resolution dated September 1, 2003 of the RTC is set aside and the case remanded to said court for further proceedings.

SO ORDERED.

FERNANDA LAMPAS PERALTA Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

EDGARDO P. CRUZ NORMANDIE B. PIZARRO Associate Justice Associate Justice

15 SEC. 7. The provisions of this Act shall apply to all civil cases that have not yet reached the pre- trial stage. However, by agreement civil cases cognizable by municipal and metropolitan courts by the provisions of this Act may be transferred from the Regional Trial Courts to the latter. The executive judge of the appropriate Regional Trial Court shall define the administrative procedure of transferring the case affected by the redefinition of jurisdiction to the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.

CA-G.R. NO. CV-81285 9DECISIONx-------------------------------x

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.

EDGARDO P. CRUZAssociate Justice

Chairman, Ninth Division

CA-G.R. NO. CV-81285 10DECISIONx-------------------------------x