Epifanio Alforque, et al. v. Mindanao Motor Lines, Inc
Supreme Court
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-13579 March 8, 1961
EPIFANIO ALFORQUE, ET AL.,plaintiffs-appellees,
vs.
MINDANAO MOTOR LINES, INC.,defendant-appellant.
Cesar E. Nitorreda for plaintiffs-appellees.
Carlos Dominguez, Jr., for defendant-appellant.
R E S O L U T I O N
CONCEPCION,J.:
This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Davao, dated December 23, 1957, sentencing defendant-appellant Mindanao Motor Lines, Inc., to pay the total sum of P157,560.79 to the plaintiffs herein, numbering fifty-three (53), in the proportion set forth in Annex A of said decision, and the additional sum of P10,600.00, as attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, part from the costs. As prayed for by said defendant-appellant, its record on appeal was certified to this Court, together with all the evidence introduced in the case, seemingly under the impression that the same is within the appellate jurisdiction of this Court, inasmuch as the aggregate amount adjudicated to the plaintiffs-appellees exceeds P50,000.00.
This appeal is, however, within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, for: (a) the same extends, since the enactment of Republic Act No. 2613, approved on August 1, 1959, to all civil cases in which the value in controversy does not excess P200,000.00, exclusive of interests and costs, and the total sum awarded in the decision appealed from is less than said amount; (b) he cause of action of each of the plaintiffs is separate and distinct from that of the others, and the amount of the judgment in favor of each of them varies, ranging from P125.00 to P3,685.00 (A. Soriano y Cia vs. Jose, 47 O.G. Supp., 156; International Colleges, Inc. vs. Argonza, L-3884, Nov. 29, 1951; Abrasaldo vs. Compania Maritima, G. R. No. L-11918, July 31, 1958; R.C. Pangilinan & Co., Inc, vs. J. Pasicolan, L-13317, April 25, 1960; Cajilig, et al. vs. Co, L-12800, August 5, 1960); and (c) appellant's brief questions the sufficiency of the evidence in support of the findings of fact of the lower court.
WHEREFORE, pursuant to section 31 of Republic Act No. 296, as amended, let the record of this case be remanded to the Court of Appeals for disposition thereof in accordance with law. It is so ordered.
Bengzon, Actg. C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes and Dizon, JJ.,concur.
Related decisions
Decisions on similar questions that neither cites the other: they rely on the same precedents, are cited together, or apply the same law.
- L-13239 March 24 v. Mapa19611 shared precedent · both apply Act 2613, Act 296, RA 2613
- L-34223 December 10 v. Philippine National Bank and the…1982both apply Act 2613, Act 296, RA 2613
- L-28864 November 27 v. Maddela1969both apply Act 2613, Act 296, RA 2613
- L-22488 October 26 v. Ramolete1967both apply Act 2613, Act 296, RA 2613
- L-17624 June 30 v. Masaganda1962both apply Act 2613, Act 296, RA 2613
- L-16934 July 31 v. Cordova1964both apply Act 2613, Act 296, RA 2613
- L-16732 May 29 v. Abing1962both apply Act 2613, Act 296, RA 2613
- L-15566 June 29 v. Aviado1962both apply Act 2613, Act 296, RA 2613
Laws it applies
Links and connections are read from the text by pattern matching, not checked by a person. A guide, not a finding.