Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-16291 December 29, 1962
KER & COMPANY, LTD., plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
ANDREW GOTIANUN, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
A. P. Deen, Eddy A. Deen and N. R. Deen for plaintiff-appellant.
Regino Hermosisima for defendant-appellant Andrew Gotianun. Nasario R. Paquiao for defendant-appellant Felipe Chua.
R E S O L U T I O N
BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:
Ker & Company, Ltd., on April 5, 1949, entered into a contract of lease with Andrew Gotianun whereby the former leased from the latter a building of strong materials which was to be erected by Gotianun on a portion of land belonging to him situated in Cebu City. Gotianun employed Felipe Chua as the engineer-contractor to erect the building.
On August 21, 1949, Ker & Company was able finally to occupy the building after much delay and after it notified Gotianun of the many defects or faults it found in the construction.
On December 9, 1951, the building collapsed. Ker & Company attributed the collapse to the defects in the construction and use of materials of inferior quality which could not withstand wind pressure, whereas Gotianun and his engineer blamed the collapse on typhoon "Amy".
As a consequence Ker & Company filed on February 23, 1952 before the Court of First Instance of Cebu City against Andrew Gotianun and Felipe Chua an action for damages praying that the latter be ordered to pay, jointly and severally, to plaintiff the sum of P160,000 for the goods, merchandise and other properties stocked in the leased premises which were damaged and destroyed by the collapse thereof, including all expenses and losses, plus P10,000 as attorney's fees and costs.
Defendant Gotianun, in his answer, denied the allegations of the complaint and set up a counterclaim for P20,000 as moral damages, P5,000 as attorney's fees, and P10,000 as expenses of litigation. He also prayed that plaintiff be ordered to pay the actual damages in the amount of P1,500 every month for the duration of the preliminary injunction. The record, however, does not show that such injunction was ever granted by the court.lawphil.net
Defendant Felipe Chua also denied the allegations of the complaint and as a counterclaim prayed that plaintiff be ordered to pay him the sum of P100,000 as moral damages, plus P5,000 as attorney's fees, and such other remedies as may be just, legal and equitable under the premises.
After the trial on the merits, the court a quo rendered decision dismissing the complaint with cost against the plaintiff. The counterclaims of both defendants were likewise dismissed. In due time, both parties appealed directly to this Court but in their briefs they raised both questions of fact and of law.
Considering that the sum claimed in the complaint of appellant Ker & Company, Ltd., only amounts to P170,000 exclusive of interest, whereas the combined counterclaims of defendants-appellants only involve an aggregate amount of P140,000, and considering further that the amounts claimed by both parties can only be considered alternately or separately, and not jointly, for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of the corresponding appellate court, we are of the opinion that this case comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals (Republic Act 2613).lawphi1.net
WHEREFORE, it is hereby ordered that this case be certified to the Court of Appeals for adjudication in accordance with law.
Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
