G.R. No. 139031 - MARIE ANTOINETTE R. SOLIVEN, VS. FASTFORMS PHILIPPINES, INC..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that judgment be rendered: (a) holding/declaring defendant (now respondent) guilty of breach of contract x x x; and (b) ordering defendant to pay plaintiff (now petitioner) the following sums: P195,155.00 as actual damages; P200,000.00 as moral damages; P100,000.00 as exemplary damages; and P100,000.00 as attorneys fees, plus the costs of suit. Plaintiff prays for such other relief just and equitable in the premises. Respondent, in its answer with counterclaim, [5] denied that it obtained a loan from petitioner; and that it did not authorize its then president, Dr. Eduardo Escobar, to secure any loan from petitioner or issue various checks as payment for interests. After trial on the merits, the court a quo rendered a Decision dated July 3, 1995 [6] in favor of petitioner, the dispositive portion of which reads: 22. WHEREFORE , the court hereby renders judgment as follows: 22.1. The defendant FASTFORMS PHILS., INC. is ordered to pay the plaintiff, MARIE ANTOINETTE R. SOLIVEN, the following amounts: 22.1.1. P175,000.00 the amount of the loan and its interest covered by the check (Exh. 3); 22.1.2. Five (5%) percent of P175,000.00 a month from June 25, 1993 until the P175,000.00 is fully paid less the sum of P76,250.00 as interest; 22.1.3. P50,000.00 as attorneys fees. 22.2. The COMPLAINT for MORAL and EXEMPLARY damages is DISMISSED. 22.3. The COUNTERCLAIM is DISMISSED; and 22.4. Costs is taxed against the defendant. Respondent then filed a motion for reconsideration [7] questioning for the first time the trial courts jurisdiction. It alleged that since the amount of petitioners principal demand (P195,155.00) does not exceed P200,000.00, the complaint should have been filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court pursuant to Republic Act No. 7691. [8] Petitioner opposed the motion for reconsideration, stressing that respondent is barred from assailing the jurisdiction of the trial court since it has invoked the latters jurisdiction by seeking affirmative relief in its answer to the complaint and actively participated in all stages of the trial. [9] In its Order dated October 11, 1995, [10] the trial court denied respondents motion for reconsideration, holding that it has jurisdiction over the case because the totality of the claim therein exceeds P200,000.00. The trial court also ruled that respondent, under the principle of estoppel, has lost its right to question its jurisdiction. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial courts Decision on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The Appellate Court held that the case is within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court, petitioners claim being only P195,155.00; and that respondent may assail the jurisdiction of the trial court anytime even for the first time on appeal. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied by the Court of Appeals in its Resolution dated June 17, 1999