Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

FOURTH JUDICIAL REGION
ORIENTAL MINDORO
BRANCH 40
Calapan City
-o0o-

CALAPAN LABOR SERVICE CIVIL CASE No. CV-18-7337

DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE
(CALSEDECO)Represented by
MANUEL T. CUBOS,
Plaintiff,

Versus for

LEOVIGILDA E. PIA ET AL., COLLECTION OF SUM OF

Defendants, MONEY AND DAMAGES
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

EXPLANATION

Comes now plaintiff, thru the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable
Court most respectfully submits this explanation concerning the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court in the above-captioned case thus:

Arguments

ONLY ANCILLARY DAMAGES ARE EXCLUDED

This explanation is issued in view of the observation by the Honorable

Presiding Judge that the jurisdictional amount is based on the amount of the
demand, exclusive of interest, cost, penalties and damages as expressed in the
Rules of Court.

While the plaintiff agrees with the observation of the Honorable Court when
it stated that jurisdictional amount is based on the amount of the demand, exclusive
of interest, cost, penalties and damages, however, said rule is not absolute. It must
be recalled that only damages which are merely ancillary or incidental to a main
cause of action is excluded in the determination of jurisdictional amount. The
Honorable Supreme Court had already explained this matter in Administrative
Circular 09-94 to wit:

“For the guidance of the bench and the Bar, the following guidelines are to be
followed in the implementation of Republic Act No. 7691, entitled "An Act
Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, Amending for the Purpose Batas

1
 Pambansa Blg. 129, Otherwise Known as the 'Judiciary Reorganization Act of
1980":

1. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

2. The exclusion of the term "damages of whatever kind" in determining the

jurisdictional amount under Section 19 (8) and Section 33 (1) of B.P. Blg. 129, as
amended by R.A. 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.”

In the case at bar, it is well to note that plaintiff’s claim for damages is not
merely incidental but on the contrary, it is one of the causes of action. Such fact is
extant in paragraph 10 of the complaint thus:

10. By reason of defendants’ remiss attitude in complying with their obligation to

pay, plaintiff’s lending operation was put to controversy which adversely
affected not only its name but also the names of its officers.
Accordingly, defendants should be made to pay P100, 000. 00 as
exemplary damages; [Emphasis ours]

A careful perusal of the above-quoted statements would readily reveal that

plaintiff does not only seek the collection of the unpaid debts of the defendants but
more importantly, plaintiff is demanding damages because it [including its
officers] was dragged into a muddle which marred its name and created a
misperception among its members that the cooperative was financially wobbly.

Modesty aside, CALSEDECO has been operating as a multi-purpose

cooperative for more almost (4) decades already and thru these years it had
successfully established good standing. It holds the distinction of being the first
and only cooperative in the Philippines to manage a major port and a recipient of
various awards in and out of the country. Incidentally, it was at the time that
defendants gave the plaintiff a run-around that signalled the wrong impression that
it has fiscal problems due to some unpaid accounts concerning its lending venture.

Also, it must be stressed that the instant complaint is captioned “Collection

of Sum of Money and Damages.”

Notice that the plaintiff used the conjunction “and” which suggests that
“damages” is separate and distinct from the “collection of sum of money”. Had the
plaintiff intended to include “damages” as mere incidental issue, it would have
used the conjunction “with” instead of “and”.

“All claims for damages should be considered in determining the jurisdiction of

the court regardless of whether they arose from a single cause of action or several
causes of action. Rule 2, Section 5, of the Rules of Court allows a party to assert
as many causes of action as he may have against the opposing party. Subsection
(d) of said section provides that where the claims in all such joined causes of
action are principally for recovery of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall
be the test of jurisdiction.
 

2
 Hence, whether or not the different claims for damages are based on a single
cause of action or different causes of action, it is the total amount thereof which
shall govern. Jurisdiction in the case at bar remains with the RTC, considering
that the total amount claimed, inclusive of the moral and exemplary damages
claimed, is P490,000.00.” [Artemio Iniego vs Judge Purganan, GR No. 166876]

ACCRUED INTEREST IS INCLUDED IN THE

DETERMINATION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT

As we have professed during the last hearing, this issue is not novel. In fact,
this matter had already been presented and discussed in one of the cases which we
filed with the Honorable Regional Trial Court, Branch 40 entitled CALSEDECO
vs. LIZA ARAZA docketed as CIVIL CASE No. CV-18-7198, wherein the
defendants therein thru counsel asseverate that “interest” must not be considered in
the computation of the jurisdictional amount. Also, they insist that plaintiff erred in
adding the amount of interest in the instant complaint for purposes of jurisdiction.
With all due respect, such proposition is not entirely accurate. Although we agree
with the defendants that jurisdictional amount is based on the demand, exclusive of
interest etc., however, said rule is not without exception. The case in point, Elmer
Gomez vs Ma. Lita Montalban, GR No. 174414, wherein the Supreme Court
explained that accrued interest at the time of the filing of the complaint should be
included in the determination of jurisdictional amount to wit:

“The Court gleans from the foregoing that petitioners’ cause of action is the
respondents’ violation of their loan agreement. In that loan agreement, respondent
expressly agreed to pay the principal amount of the loan, plus 15% monthly
interest. Consequently, petitioner is claiming and praying for in his Complaint the
total amount of P238,000.00, already inclusive of the interest on the loan which
had accrued from 1998. Since the interest on the loan is a primary and
inseparable component of the cause of action, not merely incidental thereto,
and already determinable at the time of filing of the Complaint, it must be
included in the determination of which court has the jurisdiction over
petitioner’s case. Using as basis the P238,000.00 amount being claimed by
petitioner from respondent for payment of the principal loan and interest, this
Court finds that it is well within the jurisdictional amount fixed by law for RTCs. 
 
There can be no doubt that the RTC in this case has jurisdiction to entertain, try,
and decide the petitioners Complaint.”

In the case at hand, it is quite indubitable that defendants had categorically

agreed to pay monthly interest as per contract. Unfortunately, after several years,
they [wittingly or unwittingly] failed to make good of their promise despite
numerous demands. Consequently, it is but fair on the part of the plaintiff to
demand not only the principal amount of the loan but also the agreed interest and
penalties as stipulated in the contract because they constitute an integral part of
the terms and conditions of the contract so much so that plaintiff would not have
entered into the said contract without the same. As such, since the interest on the
loan is a primary and inseparable component of the cause of action, not merely
incidental thereto, and already determinable at the time of the filing of the
complaint (liquidated), it must be included in the determination of which court has
the jurisdiction over the instant case.

3
 At the risk of being repetitive, it is noteworthy that defendants had expressly
agreed to pay the principal amount of the loan plus monthly interest. Clearly, the
principal loan and interest are inseparable fragment of the cause of action. This is
true, although, the principal amount in this case was less than the jurisdictional
amount cognizable by the Regional Trial Court, considering that the amount of the
demand as alleged in the complaint, which included the amount of accrued interest,
was well within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court.
 
To this Court, it is irrelevant that during the course of the trial, it was proven that
respondent is only liable to petitioner for the amount of P40,000.00 representing
the principal amount of the loan; P57,000.00 as interest thereon at the rate of 24%
per annum reckoned from 26 August 1998 until the present; and P15,000.00 as
attorney’s fees. Contrary to respondent’s contention, jurisdiction can neither be
made to depend on the amount ultimately substantiated in the course of the trial or
proceedings nor be affected by proof showing that the claimant is entitled to
recover a sum in excess of the jurisdictional amount fixed by law. 

Jurisdiction is determined by the cause of action as alleged in the

complaint and not by the amount ultimately substantiated and awarded.”
[Supra]
 

In that case of CALSEDECO vs. LIZA ARAZA docketed as CIVIL CASE

No. CV-18-7198, the Honorable Regional Trial Court, Branch 40 denied the
Motion to Dismiss filed by the defendants therein.

In fine we maintain that this Honorable Court has jurisdiction to take

cognizance of this case on account of the reasons above-stated.

In this case, most respectfully offers for admission the following exhibits to
wit:

Exhibit “A” and its sub-marking- The petition-to prove the existence of
the same and to show that the filing of the instant complaint has been duly signed;

Exhibit “B” and its sub-marking- Board Resolution-to prove the

existence of the documents and to show that the filing of the instant complaint has
been authorized by the plaintiff’s board of directors;

Exhibit “C” and its sub-marking- Secretary’s Certificate-to prove the

existence of the document and to show that the Resolution was passed by the
Board of Directors

4
 Exhibit “D” and its sub-marking- Board Resolution-to prove the
existence of the documents and to substantiate plaintiff’s claim that it designated
the attorney in fact to initiate this complaint;

Exhibit “E” and its sub-marking- Secretary’s Certificate-to prove the

existence of the document and to show that the Resolution was passed by the
Board of Directors

Exhibit “F” and its sub-marking- Loan Application/Agreement Form-

To prove the existence of the documents and to prove that defendant, Leovigilda
Pia applied for and was granted a loan by the plaintiff. Also to show that the other
co-defendants participated in the contract and signed the same in their capacity as
co-makers;

Exhibit “F-2” - the signature of the defendants. Co makers,- To prove

that they are privy to the contract and to show that they acceded they obligation as
co-makers;

Exhibit “G” and its sub-marking- Loan Release Voucher- to prove that
the amount of the loan applied for by the defendants were released to them;

Exhibit “H” and its sub-marking- Memorandum of Agreement- to show

that the contract between the parties to this case;

Exhibit “I” and its sub-marking- Statement of Account- to prove that the
defendants had an outstanding balance amounting to P458, 721.95 as of December
31, 2018;

Exhibit “J” and its sub-marking- Final Demand Letter- to prove that a
demand was made and served upon the defendant, Leovigilda Pia, demanding
from her to pay the loan;

Exhibit “K” and its sub-marking- Final Demand Letter- to prove that a
demand was made and served upon the defendant, Luzviminda Cantuba,
demanding from her to pay the loan;

Exhibit “L” and its sub-marking- Final Demand Letter- to prove that a
demand was made and served upon the defendant, Eva Marfa, demanding from
her to pay the loan;

5
 Exhibit “M” and its sub-marking- Final Demand Letter- to prove that a
demand was made and served upon the defendant, Jennifer Matalubos, demanding
from her to pay the loan;

Exhibit “N” and its sub-marking- Final Demand Letter- to prove that a
demand was made and served upon the defendant, Lerma Balmes, demanding
from her to pay the loan;

At this juncture, plaintiff respectfully rests its case.

Wherefore, Plaintiff most respectfully prays of this Honorable Court, that

this case be considered submitted for resolution by this Honorable Court.

April 13, 2023,

Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro2021

ATTY. JOSEPH RYAN C. APASAN

Counsel for Plaintiff
IBP OR No. 134859
PTR No. 10389162/ Calapan City/ 1-6-2023
IBP Roll No. 56968
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0001337/12-12-16
352 Gozar Street, Camilmil, Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro

Copy furnished:

LEOVIGILDA E. PIA
No. 84 Calle F. Agoncillo
Taal, Batangas

LUZVIMINDA CANTUBA
Barangay Anak-Dagat
Lemery Batangas

MARITES G. DE ROXAS
Barangay Cultihan
Taal, Batangas

JENNIFER MATALUBOS
No. 79 Calle F. Agoncillo
Barangay Zone III
Taal, Batangas

CARMELA P. CATILO
G. Marella St.
Taal, Batangas

6
 NOTICE

Hon. Branch Clark of Court

RTC Branch 40,

Good day! Please submit the foregoing upon receipt hereof for the Honorable Court’s
consideration. Thank you.

JOSEPH RYAN C. APASAN

EXPLANATION

Copies of this motion were sent to the defendants thru registered mail due to distance and
lack of personnel of this office to effect personal service. Thank you.

JOSEPH RYAN C. APASAN