ERIBERTO P. CRISOSTOMO, G.R. No. 171503
Petitioner,
Present:
- versus - Ynares-Santiago, J. (Chairperson),
Austria-Martinez,
Chico-Nazario,
and
Nachura, JJ.
ARNIE R. DE GUZMAN,
Respondent. Promulgated:
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision[1] dated
The facts of the case are as
follows:
Petitioner Crisostomo allegedly
purchased bakery products from respondent De Guzman with a total value of P1,262,121.00,
and left an unpaid balance of P277,121.00. Petitioner promised to pay respondent in June
2003 but failed to do so despite several demands. Thus, on
On P200,000.00 took effect only on April
12, 2004. According to petitioner –
2. Under Section 1 of Supreme Court
Administrative Circular No. 09-94 dated P100,000.00 to P200,000.00
took effect on April 14, 1999, while the final adjustment from P200,000.00 to P300,000.00
five (5) years thereafter took effect on April 12, 2004.
3. Citing only Section 31 of EO 292,
the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), however, issued Circular No. 21-99
dated
4. Defendant wonders why the OCA, in the
computation of the periods “after five (5) years from effectivity of this Act”
and “five (5) years thereafter” found in Section 5 of RA 7691, used three
hundred sixty (360) days only instead of three hundred sixty five (365) days
for every year. Be it noted that the period of five (5) years covering
5. Also, by citing Section 31 of EO 292
only, and disregarding totally the provision of Article 13 of the New Civil
Code, the OCA may be of the impression that there is an inconsistency in the
definition of the term “years” between the two laws. x x x As used in Section 31 of EO 292, the phrase
“twelve calendar months” refers to specific calendar months of January,
February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October and
November (which contain 31, 28, 31, 30, 31, 30, 31, 31, 30, 31, 30 and 31 days,
respectively, or a total of 365 days). Therefore,
the term “years” in Article 13, New Civil Code and “year” in EO 292 are
understood to similarly contain three hundred sixty five days.[3] (Underscoring supplied)
Petitioner claimed that since the
complaint was filed on
On
Without filing a motion for
reconsideration from the MTCC order, petitioner forthwith filed a Petition for Certiorari
and Prohibition before the RTC of San Jose City, Branch 38, docketed as Special
Civil Action No. (05) 12-SJC. In a Decision
dated
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration[4] of
the RTC decision which was denied.[5] Hence, petitioner directly took this recourse
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, arguing that:
I.
THE
SECOND ADJUSTMENT IN THE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT OF FIRST LEVEL COURTS TOOK
EFFECT ONLY ON
II.
RTC
III.
THE
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION TENDERS NEW ISSUES AND ARGUMENTS, HENCE, IT IS NOT
PRO FORMA.[6]
The petition lacks merit.
The RTC correctly found that the MTCC
did not abuse its discretion when it denied petitioner’s motion to dismiss
Civil Case No. 3706. Grave abuse of
discretion exists only where an act of a court or tribunal is performed with a
capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of
jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion
must be so patent and gross, as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or
to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in
contemplation of law as where, by reason of personal hostility, the power is
exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner. Mere errors of fact or law committed by the
lower court are not correctible in a special civil action for certiorari under
Rule 65.[7]
As correctly observed by the RTC, the
MTCC merely followed the effectivity dates fixed by the OCA for the increase in
the jurisdictional amounts and applied the OCA circulars in determining that it
in fact had jurisdiction over the complaint filed by respondent. The MTCC did not evade any positive duty or
refuse to perform an act enjoined by law when it refused to dismiss Civil Case
No. 3706. On the contrary, it acted in
accordance with law and in compliance with the OCA directives.
The provisions of RA 7691 which are
pertinent to the instant case provide as follows:
SEC.
5. After five (5) years from the effectivity of this Act, the jurisdictional
amounts mentioned in Sec. 19(3), (4), and (8); and Sec. 33(1) of Batas Pambansa
Blg. 129 as amended by this Act, shall be adjusted to Two hundred thousand
pesos (P200,000.00). Five (5) years thereafter, such jurisdictional
amounts shall be adjusted further to Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00):
Provided, however, That in the case of Metro Manila, the abovementioned
jurisdictional amounts shall be adjusted after five (5) years from the effectivity
of this Act to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00).
x x x x
SEC.
7. The provisions of this Act shall
apply to all civil cases that have not yet reached the pretrial stage. However,
by agreement of all the parties, civil cases cognizable by municipal and
metropolitan courts by the provisions of this Act may be transferred from the
Regional Trial Courts to the latter. The executive judge of the appropriate
Regional Trial Court shall define the administrative procedure of transferring
the cases affected by the redefinition of jurisdiction to the Metropolitan
Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.
Pursuant to Section 5 above, the OCA declared in Circular No. 21-99[8] that
the first adjustment in jurisdictional amount of first level courts outside of
Metro Manila from P100,000.00 to P200,000.00 took effect on P200,000.00
to P300,000.00 became effective on February 22, 2004 in accordance with
Circular No. 65-2004 issued by the OCA on May 13, 2004.
It should be noted that the foregoing OCA circulars were issued to
establish a definite reckoning date for the effectivity of the increased
jurisdictional amounts for the general guidance of the bench and bar. The issuances were necessary for the orderly
transfer of cases affected by Section 5 in relation to Section 7 of RA 7691. In other words, the OCA circulars were issued
for purely administrative and procedural purposes. The issuances were not meant to affect the
jurisdiction of first level courts in any substantive sense and were issued
merely for the proper technical implementation of RA 7691.
The intent of RA 7691 was to expand the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan
Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts by
amending the pertinent provisions of BP 129 or the Judiciary Reorganization Act
of 1980. Under Section 5 of the said
law, the increase in jurisdictional amount for all kinds of claims before first
level courts outside of Metro Manila was to be implemented in a staggered basis
over a period of 10 years. The first
adjustment was to take place five years after the effectivity of the law. The second and final adjustment, on the other
hand, would be made five years thereafter.
Considering the foregoing rationale behind the issuance of the OCA circulars
vis-à-vis the main purpose of RA 7691, we find no compelling reason to
discuss whether the OCA committed a mistake in the computation of the five-year
periods for making the corresponding adjustments in jurisdictional amounts. Any error committed by the OCA, if any, would
have no material consequence to the substantive rights of the parties and
should at most be treated as an innocuous mistake that will not detract from
the intent of RA 7691. To resolve the
question of whether the OCA made an erroneous computation of the five-year
periods would be a purely academic exercise that will have no practical
significance. It will only unnecessarily
disrupt the administration of justice and unsettle many claims that have been
filed based on the declared effectivity dates.
In this connection, it must be pointed out that regardless of whether or
not we adopt the computation espoused by petitioner, the fact remains that, as
of this time, the jurisdiction of the MTCC has been expanded to include claims
not exceeding P300,000.00 under Section 5, RA 7691. Pursuant to Section 7 of the same law, the
adjustment applies to cases pending before the RTC that have not yet reached
the pre-trial stage which, pursuant to the same provision, shall be transferred
to the first level courts. If respondent’s complaint were thus filed
before the RTC instead of the MTCC, it would have been transferred by now to
the latter court pursuant to Section 7 of RA 7691.
We also note that respondent filed his complaint for recovery of a sum of
money before the MTCC on
All told, the main issue raised by petitioner in the instant case is moot
and does not deserve consideration by this Court. In fact, the OCA circulars have outlived their useful
purpose and have become functus oficio,[9] considering that the bench
and bar have followed and been guided by its terms. It does not appear that the issue of whether
or not the computation of the period was erroneous involves any substantive
right of the parties or is of transcendental importance to the public. Neither did the circulars, as implementing
directives, transgress in any significant way the provisions and main intent of
RA 7691.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition
is DENIED for lack of merit. The MTCC of San Jose City, Branch 1, is
hereby ORDERED to try and decide Civil Case No. 3706 with dispatch.
SO ORDERED.
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution
and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby certified that the
conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case
was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Acting Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 19-21. Penned by Judge Joselito Cruz Villarosa.
[2]
Records, pp. 11-14.
[3] Rollo, pp. 28-29.
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7] China Banking Corporation v. Mondragon
International Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 164798, November 17, 2005, 475
SCRA 332, 337.
[8]
Dated
[9]
See Ticzon v. Video Post Manila, Inc.,
G.R. No. 136342,