Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-15747 November 3, 1961
VICTORIANO GUNDRAN, CECILIA DUQUE, SALVADOR ESQUILLO, FILOMENA ESGUIERRA, ROSALINDA CIPRIANO, MARIANO BANTIQUE, RUFINA BANTIQUE, JOVITA BANTIQUE, BENITO BANTIQUE, TEOFILO CALUBAQUIB, AURORA BAQUIRAN, ESMERALDA SIRIBAN, DOMINGO BALAO, GREGORIO BALAO, EULOGIO BALAO, QUINTIN BALAO, OLIMPIA BALAO, LUISA BALAO, RUFINA BALAO, SERVANDO BALAO, RODOLFO BALAO, ADRIANO FLORES, HILARIO LAURENTE, FILOMENA LAURENTE, MONICO LAURENTE and ZOILO CARONAN, plaintiffs-appellants,
vs.
THE RED LINE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC., defendant-appellee.
Singson and Singson for plaintiffs-appellants.
Manuel O. Chan for defendant-appellee.
DE LEON, J.:
This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Cagayan dismissing plaintiffs-appellants' complaint against the defendant-appellee, Red Line Transportation Co., Inc., for damages resulting from the death of their relatives who perished when a motorboat capsized in the Cagayan river sometime in February, 1953. The amounts prayed for, alleged to represent actual, mental, moral, exemplary and compensatory damages suffered by the different plaintiffs, respectively, as heirs of the deceased, are as follows:
|
1. Victoriano Gundran, as heir of the deceased Teodora Gundran |
....................................... |
P21,580.00 |
|
2. Filemon Esguierra, as heir of the deceased Exequiel, Tranquilino and Lucinito Manguba |
....................................... |
P70,553.00 |
|
3. Cecilia Duque, as heir of Mariano Espiritu |
....................................... |
26,000.00 |
|
4. Salvador Esquillo, as heir of Domingo Esquillo |
....................................... |
21,000.00 |
|
5. Rosalinda Cipriano, as heir of Luciano Pacis |
....................................... |
26,000.00 |
|
6. Mariano Bantique, as heir of Mariano Bantique, Jr. |
|
21,000.00 |
|
7. Mariano, Rufina, Jovita and Benito Bantique, as heirs of Concepcion Bantique |
....................................... |
43,200.00 |
|
8. Teofilo Calubaquib, as heirs of Margarita Tamayao |
....................................... |
21,000.00 |
|
9. Aurora Baquiran, as heir of Ciriaco Siriban |
....................................... |
26,000.00 |
|
10. Esmeralda Siriban, as heir of Pio Balisi |
....................................... |
26,000.00 |
|
11. Domingo, Gregorio, Eulogio, Quintin, Luisa, Rufina, Servando and Rodolfo Balao, as heirs of Maria Balao |
....................................... |
38,196.00 |
|
12. Adriano Flores, as heir of his son |
....................................... |
21,000.00 |
|
13. Hilario, Filomena and Monico Laurente, as heirs of Bartolome and Catalina Laurente |
....................................... |
47,000.00 |
|
14. Zoilo Caronan, as heir of Rodolfo Caronan |
....................................... |
21,000.00 |
The issues raised being mostly factual, the appeal was taken to the Court of Appeals, but that court, on April 29, 1959, certified the case to Us on the ground that the amount involved exceeds P50,000.00. Obviously, the certification was made before Republic Act No. 2613 was approved and took effect on August 1, 1959. This Act, amending the Judiciary Act of 1948, has increased the amount in controversy over which the Supreme Court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction from P50,000.00 to P200,000.00.
After going over the record, We find that, as shown above, although the sums claimed by all the appellant aggregate to P429,529.00, the individual claims are very much less than P200,000.00. Considering the fact that, as in original actions, it is the individual claims, and not the totality of such claims, that is determinative of jurisdiction in this case, because the amounts prayed for are all alleged to be separately due to the different appellants (See sec. 88 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended; Santiago Sambrano, et al. vs. Rehabilitation Finance Corporation, G.R. No. L-13300, April 30, 1960), and it appearing that most of the errors assigned involve questions of fact, the appeal clearly comes within the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby certified back to the Court of Appeals for determination in accordance with law.
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
|
