This appeal is taken from a decision  of the Court  of First Instance of Manila, in its Civil Case No. 21049, dismissing  the action upon plea  of res judicata. ,By  complaint of October 27,  1953, plaintiff sought  to recover  from defendant, a former selling agent, (1) the sum of P700 allegedly misappropriated by said defendant; (2) P3,033.53 as the total amount corresponding to the face value  of and interests  on a promisorry note in plaintiff's favor, secured by a chattel mortgage; and  (3) P2,000  by way of  damages.   Defendant pleaded res judicata on the basis of a  prior  final judgment rendered.in 1949 by the Municipal Court  of Legaspi  City (Case No. 8) in favor of defendant and against plaintiif; and another judgment rendered in 1952 by the Court of First instance of Manila (Case No.  9991)  acquitting  defendant of  the charge  of estafa by misappropriation brought by the plaintiff Company  and counterclaimed for P3,500 attorney's fees and moral damages.

The case  was submitted to the Court of First Instance upon the following stipulation of facts:

"1. That the defendant had been an accredited agent of the plaintiff in  the sale of the Matter's, machineries in the Bicol region and entitled as such to a five (5%)  per cent commission on all sales made  by him.

2. That while still an agent of  the plaintiff, the defendant made several sales among which was one in favor of Masculo' Calpe.  Defendant  likewise purchased for  himself a  set  of  engines  and accessories.  These  two accounts  are the principal  subject-matter of the present action.

3. That on March 3, 1949, the defendant commenced an action (Exhibit "1")  against herein  plaintiif with  the Municipal Court of Legaspi City (Civil  Case  No. 8)  for the recovery of unpaid commission from sales made by him to his various customers, including that in favor of Masculo  Calpe,  heretofore mentioned, and that in his own  favor likewise  adverted  to in the preceding- paragraph.

4. That herein plaintiff, as defendant in the said Civil Case, filed an answer dated March 14, 1949  (Exhibit "2")  setting up therein affirmative defenses and  counterclaims which  had something to do with the various  collections allegedly made, by herein defendant from the  different customers enumerated in the answer as  already mentioned among which was that supposedly paid by Masculo Calpe and  the obligation personally incurred by herein defendant himself the  same accounts  made  the subject-matter of the  claims set forth in the  complaint in this case,  particularly in  paragraph  (3) to (6)  thereof.  

5.  That instead of' personally  appearing during the trial of the case, herein plaintiff,  thru ¦ counsel,  filed a  'Constancia'  (Exhibit "3")  waiving appearance and submitting  the case  on the  answer filed.  

6.  That after receiving the evidence'adduced by herein  defendant as plaintiff, the trial court  rendered judgment (Exhibit "4") granting the principal demand- of the  herein plaintiff  and dismissing the counterclaims pleaded by therein  defendant for lack  of  evidence,

7.  That herein  plaintiff failed to'perfect an appeal on time from the  said decision but  a  petition  to  set  aside  judgment  (Exhibit "5"), later  amended,  (Exhibit "6")  was  filed  by herein  plaintiff with the Court  of  First  Instance, of  Albay, docketed as case  No. 584,  on the grounds  therein plaintiff  stated namely among others, ¦ (a)  that a  criminal case for estafa filed against  herein  defendant involving the same claims set up as affirmative defenses and counter-claims was  then  pending before this  Court .in  Criminal  Case  No. 9991, (6) if given a chance to  be heard on the merits, herein plaintiff can prove its good and  substantial  defense and its  counterclaim,; and  (c)  the Municipal Court  of  Legaspi City had  no jurisdiction over its counterclaims  and it had always been  the intention of said  plaintiff to have, the case elevated  to the Court of First Instance' of Albay.  

8.  That the said  petition was  granted  by the  Honorable  Hermogenes Caluag of the Court of First  of Instance of Albay in his order dated October 3,  1949  (Exlhibit "7").  Thus, the case was elevated to the Court of  First Instance of  Albay and bore  docket  number 684  of said  Court.

9.  That having been  set for trial, herein plaintiff filed a  motion for continuance   (Exhibit  "8")  insisting  on  a suspension  of  said proceedings  in  view of the pendency  of Criminal Case  No.  9991 heretofore referred  to.  

10. That said  motion was denied in an  order  (Exhibit "9") issued by the  Honorable  Juan R.  Liwag dated  August  9, 1951, and, in the same order, for failure to  proseucte' its  appeal, the' same was dismissed and the judgment of the Municipal  Court in Case No. 8. was  thereby revived.

11. That  a motion  for reconsideration  of  the order of dismissal was denied fay the same Judge  (Exhibit  "10").

12. That  a petition for certiorari later amended.  (Exhibit "11") was filed with the Supreme Court assailing, the validity of the order of .dismissal.  Said case was docketed as G. R. No. L-5135 of the Supreme Court.

13. That  respective memorandum by the parties (Exhibit "12" herein defendant)  and-(Exhibit "13" herein  plaintiff) together with a reply memorandum by herein defendant (Exhibit "14") were filed with the . Supreme Court, after which  the  latter  resolved to  deny the writ applied  for  (Exhibit  "15"). ,

14. That  judgment was rendered in Criminal Case No. 9991  (Exhibit "16")  acquitting the herein defendant from the offense of estafa charged in  the information  (Exhibit "17").   (Ree,  App., pp. 19-23.)

The  lower  Court  dismissed  the  complaint stating:

"Be los hechos arriba admitidos por las partes salta a la vista, el hec-ho de que esta causa es res judicaia y,  por tanto, impide la incoacion de la presente causa, porque las sentencias arriba referidas son finales y han sido ya ejecutadas; porque los tribunal esque habian rendido  las citadas. sentencias, tenian juiisdiccion  sobre la njateria y las  partes; porque las eitadas sentencias se habian basadoen los ) meritos,  y  porque hubo identidad de partes, causa  de  aecifai y la . niisma materia litigiosa.'

Por tanto, el Juzgado sobresee esta causa con las costas a la parte demahdaiite."  (Rec.  App.,  pp. 23-24.)'

The plaintiff  then appealed to this Court  upon questions of law, assigning the following errors:

I

"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE DOCTRINE OF, RES  ADJUDICATA  OBTAINS  IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED  CASE.

II

THE TRIAL,  COURT ERRED IN  NOT  AWARDING TO HEREIN  APPELLANT, AS PLAINTIFF  IN THE  APPEALED CASE NO'. 21049, THE AMOUNT OF  P5,733;SS WITH INTEREST THEREON FROM OCTOBER 27/ 1953."  (Appellant's Brief, p. 1')

We agree that  the court  below erred  in holding that plaintiff's action herein was barred by res judicata  With regard to the judgment  of acquittal in the criminal  case, No. 9991 of the Court  of First  Instance  of Manila, the decision  (Exhibit "16")'clearly expresses that the acquittal was for the reason that "the  evidence presented is not sufficient to establish his guilt  beyond reasonable doubt," and because

"this court is inclined to  sustain the theory laid down by the accused, to  the effect that the complainant should have  first required of him a  liquidation of the  accounts under his  control in1 order to determine the amount  due the complainant and that of the accused as agent.   The Court  believes and so holds that in the absence of such an accounting1 and the  demand  thereafter, the crime  of estafa does not He."  (Exhibit "16", pp. 6-7.)

As can be seen, the decision of acquittal does not negate the fact  alleged in  the present  complaint,  that defendant, as  agent of the  plaintiff,  withheld part  of  the  moneys that he  received for his principal.  On the contrary, the decision, Exhibit  16, expressly finds

"(2) that there is no question  also  that the  accused has retained certain sums of money as appearing: in the documentary evidence presented."  (Exhibit  "16",  p. 4.)

It follows that the right  of the principal to recover in a civil action the moneys retained by the agent  has not been  barred by the acquittal in the  criminal case, since the  latter was acquitted upon reasonable  doubt  (New Civil  Code, Article 29)., and the judgment does not declare that the basis  of the civil action (retention by the agent of the moneys belonging to the principal) does not  exist (Rule 107, section  1, paragraph. d) Precisely, the existence  of  such basis  for the  civil action was expressly recognized.

Nor is the  action of  the plaintiff-appellant precluded by  the 1949 judgment of the Municipal Court of  Legaspi City  in its  Civil Case No.  S (Exhibit 4), for the reason that the counterclaim  filed  by the  appellant in said case was to recover the sums allegedly  retained by defendant Quintano as its  agent totalling P6,178.98 plus P8,500' as damages (Exhibit 2).   Award of that amount was clearly beyond the jurisdiction of  the  Municipal Court; hence, its  dismissal of the counterclaim was inoperative to bar a subsequent  suit to enforce the same.  (Pamintuan  vs. Tiglao, 53 Phil. 1; Yu Lay vs. Calmes, 40 Phil. 660; Bernardo vs. Genato, 11 Phil. 603.)  The want of jurisdiction was not cured  by  the  dismissal  of plaintiff's  appeal  by the Court of First  Instance, since the latter merely revived the appealed  judgment of the  Legaspi  Municipal Court.  The revival could not validate  that portion of the appealed judgment which was void for want of jurisdiction.

It can not be contended that by submitting the counter-claim of P14.678.98  to the Municipal Court, plaintiff conferred upon it jurisdiction over the claim, or that plaintiff became estopped from contesting such jurisdiction, since it is elementary that jurisdiction over the subject matter is only conferred by law.

For the above reasons, we  hold that  the  dismissal  of the present  action by the trial court on  the  ground  of res judicata was improper and erroneous. As defendant relied solely on the defense of res judicata and submitted the  case for decision on that issuse, he is deemed  to have admitted  all  the  material allegations  of the  complaint.   Consequently, judgment may  be rendered, as  it is hereby rendered, in favor of plaintiff-appellant for all amounts claimed in  its complaint, i.e.,  P3,733.53 under its first cause of  action, and P2,000 under  its second cause .of action, plus  interests.

Wherefore,  the  decision  appealed from is reversed and defendant-appellee is hereby ordered to pay plaintiff-appellant the total of P5,733.53, with  legal interest from the time of the filing of the complaint  up to full payment. Costs  against defendant-appellee.

Paras, C. J, Bengson, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Jugo, Concepcion, and Endencia, JJ., concur.