Wednesday, February 24, 2021

DIGEST/LINALYN BATION/MAKATI DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs PEDRO C. TANJUATCO and CONCRETE AGGREGATES, INC.

 

G.R. No. L-26443               March 25, 1969

MAKATI DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
PEDRO C. TANJUATCO and CONCRETE AGGREGATES, INC., defendants-appellees.

 

FACTS:

          Plaintiff, Makati Development Corporation (MDC) and defendant entered into a contract whereby the latter bound himself to construct a reinforced concrete covered water reservoir, office and pump house and water main at Forbes Park, Makati, Rizal, furnishing, inter alia, the materials necessary therefor. However, the supplier, Concrete Aggregates called the attention of the plaintiff for the unpaid bills of Tanjuatco in the amount of Php 5, 198.75. Consequently, plaintiff withheld the final payment due to failure of the defendant to settle its obligation.

          An action was instituted in CFI Rizal by the plaintiff against Tanjuatco and Concrete Aggregates to compel them to “interplead their conflicting claims”.

          On the other hand, Tanjuatco moved to dismiss the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, the amount involved being less than Php 10,000.

 

ISSUE(s):

(1)  Whether or not MDC can compel defendants to interplead

(2)  Whether or not CFI has jurisdiction

 

 

 

RULING:

(1)  Yes. There is no question in this case that plaintiff may compel the defendants to interplead among themselves, concerning the aforementioned sum of P5,198.75. The only issue is who among the defendants is entitled to collect the same. This is the object of the action, which is not within the jurisdiction of the lower court. As a matter of fact, on May 25, 1966 the Supplier sued Tanjuatco, in Civil Case No. 149173 of the Municipal Court of Manila, for the recovery of said amount of P5,198.75, and the decision therein will settle the question as to who has a right to the sum withheld by plaintiff herein.

 

(2)  No. Firstly, the jurisdiction of our courts over the subject-matter of justiciable controversies is governed by Rep. Act No. 296, as amended, pursuant to which municipal courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil cases "in which the demand, exclusive of interest, or the value of the property in controversy", amounts to not more than "ten thousand pesos." Secondly, "the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts" belongs to Congress and is beyond the rule-making power of the Supreme Court, which is limited to matters concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, and the admission to the practice of law.  Thirdly, the failure of said section 19 of Rule 5 of the present Rules of Court to make its Rule 63, on interpleading, applicable to inferior courts, merely implies that the same are not bound to follow Rule 63 in dealing with cases of interpleading, but may apply thereto the general rules on procedure applicable to ordinary civil action in said courts.

No comments:

Post a Comment