G.R. No. 97805, September 02, 1992
NILO H. RAYMUNDO, PETITIONER, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, SIXTEENTH DIVISION, HON. JUDGE, RTC, BR. 133, MAKATI, METRO MANILA AND GALERIA DE MAGALLANES ASSOCIATION, INC., RESPONDENTS.
D EC I S I O N
NOCON, J.:
FACTS:
on July 5, 1989, the administrator of the Galleria de Magallanes Condominium discovered that petitioner Nilo Raymundo, who was an owner/occupant of Unit AB-122 of said condominium, made an unauthorized installation of glasses at the balcony of his unit in violation of Article IV, Section 3 paragraph (d) of the Master Deed and Declaration of Restrictions of the Association, which states that:
“d. Nothing shall be done or placed in any unit or in the common areas which is beyond or will impair the structural strength of the buildings or alter the original architecture, appearance and specifications of the building, including the external facade thereof.”
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ASSOCIATION
Thereafter, the administrator of said condominium reported said violation to the Board of Directors of the private respondent Galleria de Magallanes Association, Inc. in a special meeting held on July 8,1989 and the former sent a letter dated July 12, 1989 to the petitioner demanding the latter to remove the illegal and unauthorized installation of glasses at his unit.
Petitioner refused, consequently, private respondent filed a complaint for mandatory injunction against petitioner on February 21, 1990 with the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 133 in Civil Case No. 90-490.
on March 23, 1990, instead of an Answer, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss with the trial court on the ground that said court has no jurisdiction over the present case since a complaint for mandatory injunction is within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court.
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
*Regional Trial Court - Makati: denied the Motion to Dismiss on account of lack of jurisdiction, citing Section 21 of BP 129:
NILO H. RAYMUNDO, PETITIONER, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, SIXTEENTH DIVISION, HON. JUDGE, RTC, BR. 133, MAKATI, METRO MANILA AND GALERIA DE MAGALLANES ASSOCIATION, INC., RESPONDENTS.
D EC I S I O N
NOCON, J.:
FACTS:
on July 5, 1989, the administrator of the Galleria de Magallanes Condominium discovered that petitioner Nilo Raymundo, who was an owner/occupant of Unit AB-122 of said condominium, made an unauthorized installation of glasses at the balcony of his unit in violation of Article IV, Section 3 paragraph (d) of the Master Deed and Declaration of Restrictions of the Association, which states that:
“d. Nothing shall be done or placed in any unit or in the common areas which is beyond or will impair the structural strength of the buildings or alter the original architecture, appearance and specifications of the building, including the external facade thereof.”
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ASSOCIATION
Thereafter, the administrator of said condominium reported said violation to the Board of Directors of the private respondent Galleria de Magallanes Association, Inc. in a special meeting held on July 8,1989 and the former sent a letter dated July 12, 1989 to the petitioner demanding the latter to remove the illegal and unauthorized installation of glasses at his unit.
Petitioner refused, consequently, private respondent filed a complaint for mandatory injunction against petitioner on February 21, 1990 with the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 133 in Civil Case No. 90-490.
on March 23, 1990, instead of an Answer, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss with the trial court on the ground that said court has no jurisdiction over the present case since a complaint for mandatory injunction is within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court.
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
*Regional Trial Court - Makati: denied the Motion to Dismiss on account of lack of jurisdiction, citing Section 21 of BP 129:
"Original jurisdiction in other cases. – Regional Trial Courts shall exercise original
jurisdiction:
(1) In the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction which may be enforced in any part of their respective regions; and
(2) In actions affecting ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls."
*RTC -Makati (Motion for reconsideration): denied.
*Court of Appeals: dismissed petitioner's petition for certiorari and prohibition
This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition with restraining order and preliminary injunction to annul and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals dated March 11, 1991.
ISSUE:
Which court has jurisdiction over the case considering that private respondent's sole pecuniary claim of P10,000.00 as attorney's fees in Civil Case No. 90-490 is within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court as provided for under Section 33 of B.P. 129?
RULING:
1. The RTC has jurisdiction since Sec 19 and 21 of BP 129 applies:
"Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. – Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:
(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation;”
“Sec. 21. Original Jurisdiction in other cases. - Regional Trial Courts shall exercise original jurisdiction:
(1) In the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction which may be enforced in any part of their respective regions;”
Private respondent's complaint is an action to compel the petitioner to remove the illegal and unauthorized installation of glasses at Unit AB-122 of the condominium which is not capable of pecuniary estimation and falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court.
2. ATTORNEY'S FEES IS ONLY INCIDENTAL TO THE PRINCIPAL CAUSE OF ACTION -- removal of the illegal & unauthorized installation of the glasses made by the petitioner. the question for resolution is whether or not the petitioner violated the provisions of the Master Deed and Declaration of Restriction of the corporation, and if so, to remove the illegal and unauthorized installation of glasses at Unit AB-122 of the Condominium. Clearly, the issue is incapable of pecuniary estimation.
(1) In the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction which may be enforced in any part of their respective regions; and
(2) In actions affecting ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls."
*RTC -Makati (Motion for reconsideration): denied.
*Court of Appeals: dismissed petitioner's petition for certiorari and prohibition
This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition with restraining order and preliminary injunction to annul and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals dated March 11, 1991.
ISSUE:
Which court has jurisdiction over the case considering that private respondent's sole pecuniary claim of P10,000.00 as attorney's fees in Civil Case No. 90-490 is within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court as provided for under Section 33 of B.P. 129?
RULING:
1. The RTC has jurisdiction since Sec 19 and 21 of BP 129 applies:
"Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. – Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:
(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation;”
“Sec. 21. Original Jurisdiction in other cases. - Regional Trial Courts shall exercise original jurisdiction:
(1) In the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction which may be enforced in any part of their respective regions;”
Private respondent's complaint is an action to compel the petitioner to remove the illegal and unauthorized installation of glasses at Unit AB-122 of the condominium which is not capable of pecuniary estimation and falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court.
2. ATTORNEY'S FEES IS ONLY INCIDENTAL TO THE PRINCIPAL CAUSE OF ACTION -- removal of the illegal & unauthorized installation of the glasses made by the petitioner. the question for resolution is whether or not the petitioner violated the provisions of the Master Deed and Declaration of Restriction of the corporation, and if so, to remove the illegal and unauthorized installation of glasses at Unit AB-122 of the Condominium. Clearly, the issue is incapable of pecuniary estimation.
In the instant case, the claim of attorney's fees by the private respondent in the
amount of P10,000.00 is only incidental to its principal cause of action which is for
the removal of the illegal and unauthorized installation of the glasses made by the
petitioner and therefore, said amount is not determinative of the jurisdiction of the
court.
3. THE COMPLAINT IS NOT MANDATORY INJUNCTION, IT IS MERELY A PROVISIONAL REMEDY. Note should be taken, however, that the trial court had erroneously considered the complaint as one for mandatory injunction, misled perhaps by the caption of the complaint.
A writ for mandatory injunction is a provisional remedy. It is provisional because it constitutes a temporary measure availed of during the pendency of the main action and it is ancillary because it is a mere incident in and is dependent upon the result of the main action.
DISPOSITIVE:
Petition for certiorari & prohibition dismissed.
NOTE:
“In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not capable of pecuniary estimation this Court has adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the principal action or remedy sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the municipal courts [now municipal trial courts] or in the courts of first instance [now regional trial courts] would depend on the amount of the claim.
However, where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money, or where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief sought, this Court has considered such actions as cases where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable exclusively by courts of first instance [now regional trial courts].”
3. THE COMPLAINT IS NOT MANDATORY INJUNCTION, IT IS MERELY A PROVISIONAL REMEDY. Note should be taken, however, that the trial court had erroneously considered the complaint as one for mandatory injunction, misled perhaps by the caption of the complaint.
A writ for mandatory injunction is a provisional remedy. It is provisional because it constitutes a temporary measure availed of during the pendency of the main action and it is ancillary because it is a mere incident in and is dependent upon the result of the main action.
DISPOSITIVE:
Petition for certiorari & prohibition dismissed.
NOTE:
“In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not capable of pecuniary estimation this Court has adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the principal action or remedy sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the municipal courts [now municipal trial courts] or in the courts of first instance [now regional trial courts] would depend on the amount of the claim.
However, where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money, or where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief sought, this Court has considered such actions as cases where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable exclusively by courts of first instance [now regional trial courts].”
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment