This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-02-22 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Also, in Iniego v. Purganan, [22] the Court has held: The amount of damages claimed is within the jurisdiction of the RTC, since it is the claim for all kinds of damages that is the basis of determining the jurisdiction of courts, whether the claims for damages arise from the same or from different causes of action. | |||||
|
2007-06-08 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| 2. The exclusion of the term "damages of whatever kind" in determining the jurisdictional amount under Section 19(8) and Section 33(1) of BP Blg. 129, as amended by RA No. 7691, applies to cases where the 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. (Underscoring supplied.) Actions for damages based on quasi-delicts, as in this case, are primarily and effectively actions for the recovery of a sum of money for the damages for tortious acts.[13] In this case, respondents' claim of P929,006 in damages and P25,000 attorney's fees plus P500 per court appearance represents the monetary equivalent for compensation of the alleged injury. These money claims are the principal reliefs sought by respondents in their complaint for damages.[14] Consequently then, we hold that the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City possessed and properly exercised jurisdiction over the case.[15] | |||||