As assignee of a right of action arising from due and unpaid  wages and those for  overtime, as  provided for in Commonwealth Act No.  444,  earned by Julio  Carlos who had worked as latheman for the defendant, a limited partnership, from 16 November 1949 to 21 March 1952 when he  died, leaving  as only heirs  his parents  named Lazaro Carlos and Candida Reyes who, for valuable consideration, assigned their right, the plaintiff brought this action in  the  Court of First Instance  of Manila  against the defendant to recover such due and unpaid wages and those for  overtime amounting to P1,952.55, lawful interest therein from  the  filing of  the complaint, the defendant having refused to pay it despite demand, and 10%  thereof as attorney's  fees, whose services the  plaintiff had been compelled to engage, and costs.

After filing. an  answer with a counterclaim, the defendant moved for the dismissal of the complaint  on the ground  that as the  amount of money sought to  be recovered was Pl,952.55 only, the Court had no jurisdiction to hear  and decide the case.   On 22 June 1955 the Court dismissed  the  complaint relying upon the case of Rosario vs.  Carandang, 51  Off. Gaz. 2387,  where it was  stated that "costs  and attorney's fees are  excluded from the jurisdictional amount that confers  jurisdiction upon courts * *  * On 9 July 1955 the motion  for reconsideration filed by the plaintiff was  denied.  He  appealed.

The action brought in the case just mentioned was one of forcible entry.   The  jurisdiction of the courts  in  such cases is determined by  the nature of the action and not by  the amount of money  sought to  be recovered which may  exceed P2,000.^[1]  So,  any statement or  proposition that may have been made in the case referred to which was not necessary for the determination of the controversy involved in the action is obiter dictum.  Section  88, Republic  Act No.  296,^[2]  provides that in  the  determination of the jurisdictional amount only interest  and  costs shall  be excluded from the amount of money sought to be recovered  in  an  action where the remedy prayed for  is recovery of a sum of money.   Thus, in Teresa Vda. de Rosario vs. Justice  of the Peace of Camiling, Tarlac, et al, (99 Phil.,  693) this Court  held that- 

While some doubt  had  arisen in the past as to whether the jurisdiction  of a court depends, in cases where several claims  or causes  of action between  the  same parties are  embodied  in  a single complaint, on the amount of each single claim or  upon the totality of the demand in  all the causes of action, we have finally held in the cases of  Soriano vs. Omila,  51 Off. Gaz.,  (No.  7)  p. 3465, and Campos Rueda. Corporation vs. Sta. Cruz Timber Co. Inc. (52 Off. Gaz., (No. 3) p.  1387), that the jurisdiction of the court depends upon the totality of the demand in  all the causes of action, irrespective  of  whether the plural  causes constituting the total claim  arose out of  the same or different  transactions.  The only exceptions to this rule are (1) where the  claims joined under the same  complaints are  separately  owed by,  or  due  to,  different parties, in which case each separate claim furnishes the jurisdictional test (Argonza, et al. vs.  International Colleges,  G. R. No. L-3884, November  29,  1951; Soriano y  Cia. vs. Jose, 47  Off. Gaz. (12 Supp.), p. 156); and  (2) where not all the causes of action joined are demands or claims for money.

Section 3, Commonwealth Act No. 444, grants  additional or overtime compensation to laborers working beyond the eight-hour period provided for by law.  And article  2208 of the new Civil Code provides that attorney's fees may be recovered in actions for the recovery of wages of laborers and skilled workers.  Adding 10% to the amount  claimed by the  plaintiff for wages and  overtime  the  total sum sought to be  recovered is  within the jurisdiction  of the Court of  First Instance.

The orders  appealed from dismissing the complaint and denying the motion for reconsideration  are set aside and the case remanded to the court  below for further proceedings in  accordance with law.

Paras, C. J., Montemayor, Bautista  Angelo, Labrador, Concepion, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia, and Felix,  JJ., concur.
   
   

---