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