MARIE SOLIVEN v. FASTFORMS PHILIPPINES, INC.

G.R. No. 139031, October 18, 2004

Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.

FACTS:
Respondent Fastforms Philippines Inc., through its president Dr. Eduardo Escobar, obtained a
loan from petitioner Soliven in the amount of P170,000.00 payable within a period of 21 days with
an interest of 3%. The loan was evidenced by a promissory note executed by Dr. Escobar. The
loan was to be used to pay the salaries of respondent’s employees. On the same day, respondent
issued a postdated check in the amount of P175,000.00. About 3 weeks later, respondent through
Dr. Escobar, advised petitioner not to deposit the postdated check as the account from where it
was drawn has insufficient funds.

The respondent proposed to petitioner that the P175,000.00 be “rolled-over” with a monthly
interest of 5%. Petitioner agreed. Subsequently, respondent through Dr. Escobar, Mr. Harney
(vice-president) and Mr. Steve Singson (the new president), issued several checks in the total
sum of P76,250.00 in favor of petitioner as payment for interests. Later, despite petitioner’s
repeated demands, respondent refused to pay its principal obligation and interests due.

In her complaint before the RTC Branch 60, Makati City, petitioner prays for the sum of P195,000
as actual damages, P200,000 as moral damages, P100,000 as exemplary damages and
P100,000 as attorney’s fees plus costs of suit. Respondent, in its answer with counterclaim,
denied that it obtained a loan from petitioner, and it did not authorize its then president Dr. Escobar
to secure loan from petitioner or issue various checks as payment for interests.

After trial, the court rendered judgment in favor of petitioner. Respondent filed a Motion for
Reconsideration questioning for the first time the trial court’s jurisdiction. It alleged that since the
petitioner’s principal demand (P195,000) does not exceed P200,000, the complaint should have
been filed with the MeTC. Petitioner opposed the MR, stressing that respondent is barred from
assailing the jurisdiction of the trial court since it has invoked the latter’s jurisdiction by seeking
affirmative relief in its answer and actively participated in all stages of the trial.

The trial court denied respondent’s MR since the totality of the claim therein exceeds P200,000
and under the principle of estoppel, respondent has lost its right to question its jurisdiction.

On Appeal, CA reversed the trial court’s decision on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and that
respondent may assail the jurisdiction of the trial court anytime even for the first time on appeal.
Petitioner filed a MR but was denied.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over the civil case.

RULING:
No, the RTC has no jurisdiction over the petitioner’s complaint.

R.A. No. 7691 provides that where the amount of the demand in civil cases instituted in Metro
Manila exceeds P200,000, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees,
litigation expenses, and costs, the exclusive original jurisdiction thereof is lodged with the RTC.
The same law also provides that where the amount of the demand in the complaint instituted in
Metro Manila does not exceed P200,000, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind,
attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs, the exclusive original jurisdiction over the same is
vested in the MTC.

In Admin. Circular No. 09-94, the exclusion of the term “damages of whatever kind” in determining
the jurisdictional amount under Sec. 19 and Sec. 33 of BP 129 applies to cases where damages
are merely incidental to or a consequence of the main cause of action. However, in cases where
the claim for damages is the main cause of action, or one of the causes of action, the amount of
such claim shall be considered in determining the jurisdiction of the court.

Here, the main cause of action is for the recovery of sum of money amounting to only P195,000.
The damages being claimed are merely the consequences of this main cause of action. Hence,
they are not included in determining the jurisdictional amount. Therefore, it is the MeTC which
has jurisdiction over the instant case.

However, while it is true that jurisdiction may be raised at any time, “this rule presupposes that
estoppel has not supervened.” In the instant case, respondent actively participated in all stages
of the proceedings before the trial court and invoked its authority by asking for an affirmative relief.
Clearly, respondent is estopped from challenging the trial court’s jurisdiction especially when an
adverse judgment has been rendered.

In the case of Sta. Lucia Realty and Development, Inc. v. Cabrigas, the Court ruled: “The Court
has constantly upheld the doctrine that while jurisdiction may be assailed at any stage, a litigant’s
participation in all stages of the case before the trial court, including the invocation of its authority
in asking for affirmative relief, bars such party from challenging the court’s jurisdiction. A party
cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief against his opponent and after
obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that same jurisdiction. The Court
frowns upon the undesirable practice of a party participating in the proceedings and submitting
his case for decision and then accepting judgement, only if favorable, and attacking it for lack of
jurisdiction, when adverse.”

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed decision and resolution of the CA
are REVERSED. The decision and resolution of the RTC, Branch 60, Makati City are hereby
AFFIRMED.