Ascue vs. Court of Appeals

Jurisdiction over consignation cases is determined by the amount consigned, which is capable of pecuniary estimation, and where the amount consigned does not exceed P20,000.00, exclusive of interests and costs, the Metropolitan Trial Court or Municipal Trial Court has exclusive original jurisdiction under Section 33(1) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129.

Private respondents were lessees of petitioner Ramon Y. Ascue, occupying three separate units in a leased premises located in Pepin St., Sampaloc, Manila, with monthly rentals of P635.00, P950.00, and P950.00 respectively. The dispute arose from petitioner's refusal to collect rentals for the months of May, June, and July 1986, prompting private respondents to seek consignation of the aggregate amount of P5,625.00 with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch 29. The case is related to G.R. No. 78438, as both cases arise from the same complaint filed by private respondents against the petitioner.

Private respondents Ramon Antonio, Salvador Salenga, and Ulipia Fernandez were lessees of petitioner Ramon Y. Ascue, occupying Nos. 948, 950, and 952 of the leased premises located in Pepin St., Sampaloc, Manila, with monthly rentals of P635.00, P950.00, and P950.00, respectively. On 25 July 1986, private respondents filed a complaint with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch 29, alleging that petitioner refused to collect the rentals for the months of May, June, and July 1986, except for the P1,500.00 collected from respondent Antonio representing rentals for May and one-half of June 1986. The aggregate amount of rentals that became due was P5,625.00, which petitioner refused to receive, prompting private respondents to seek consignation of the said amount with the metropolitan trial court.

Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it is the regional trial courts, not metropolitan trial courts, which have jurisdiction over consignation cases, the subject matter of litigation being allegedly incapable of pecuniary estimation. In an Order dated 17 October 1986, the Metropolitan Trial Court denied the motion, ruling that the amount consigned (P5,625.00) being well below P20,000.00, the inferior court had jurisdiction, and that a motion to dismiss is a prohibited pleading.

Petitioner appealed the order to the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 52, which, in its decision dated 20 March 1987, dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was premature and that, in any event, the proper remedy was a special civil action for certiorari. On 23 June 1987, petitioner filed a direct appeal with the Supreme Court, docketed as G.R. No. 78438, from the RTC judgment. In a resolution dated 19 August 1987, the Supreme Court referred the case to the Court of Appeals, which has concurrent jurisdiction over the subject matter, it appearing that no special and important reason had been cited to justify the Court's taking cognizance of the petition at the first instance.

The Court of Appeals, in its decision dated 25 July 1988, dismissed the petition (docketed CA-G.R. SP No. 12765), ruling first, that the jurisdiction of a court in consignation cases depends on the amount consigned, consignation being merely a form of payment and the opposite of a demand by a creditor for payment; and second, that the RTC's dismissal of petitioner's appeal based on procedural rather than substantive grounds is of no moment, as what is decisive is that the complaint for consignation was filed in the proper court. On 9 September 1988, petitioner filed with the Supreme Court a petition for review on certiorari, docketed G.R. No. 84330, questioning the Court of Appeals' decision.

• Jurisdiction over Consignation Cases: Petitioner argued that the action is one for consignation, and it is the Regional Trial Court, not the Metropolitan Trial Court, which has jurisdiction over the same, inasmuch as the subject matter of litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation; the amount actually consigned (P5,625.00) is of no moment.
• Proper Remedy: Petitioner argued that the Court of Appeals erred in refusing to resolve the issue of whether appeal, and not a special civil action for certiorari, is the proper recourse when a motion to dismiss grounded on lack of jurisdiction is denied.
• Premature Issuance of Decision: Petitioner argued that the Court of Appeals erred in issuing its decision of July 25, 1988, in spite of its awareness of incidents still pending before the Supreme Court, thus inflicting upon the litigants the burden of more expenses, duplication of pleadings, and additional work-load on both court and parties.

N/A — The decision does not recount the private respondents' specific arguments in response to the petition.

• Jurisdiction over Consignation Cases: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that consignation cases fall within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts and that the amount consigned determines said jurisdiction.
• Proper Remedy: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in refusing to resolve the issue of whether appeal, and not a special civil action for certiorari, is the proper recourse when a motion to dismiss grounded on lack of jurisdiction is denied.
• Premature Issuance of Decision: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in issuing its decision in spite of its awareness of incidents still pending before the Supreme Court.

• Jurisdiction over Consignation Cases: No. The subject matter in consignation cases—the amount due—is capable of pecuniary estimation, and the amount sought to be consigned determines the jurisdiction of the court. The amount consigned being P5,625.00, the Metropolitan Trial Court correctly assumed jurisdiction under Section 33(1) of BP Blg. 129.
• Proper Remedy: No. Considering the reasons for which G.R. No. 78438 was referred by the Supreme Court to the respondent appellate court, and taking into account that no reversible error was committed by the Court of Appeals, there was no compelling reason to overturn the ruling in the questioned decision.
• Premature Issuance of Decision: No. For the same reasons stated in the resolution of the Court dated 19 August 1987, and considering that no reversible error was committed by the Court of Appeals, the Court found no compelling reason to overturn the ruling in the questioned decision.

• Jurisdiction over Consignation Cases: Consignation is the act of depositing the thing due with the court or judicial authorities whenever the creditor cannot accept or refuses to accept payment, and it generally requires a prior tender of payment. Two of the requisites of a valid consignation are (1) that there is a debt due, and (2) the amount due is placed at the disposal of the court. Thus, where no debt is due and owing, consignation is not proper. In a valid consignation where the thing sought to be deposited is a sum of money, the amount of the debt due is determinable. Clearly, the subject matter (i.e., the amount due) in consignation cases is capable of pecuniary estimation. This amount sought to be consigned determines the jurisdiction of the court. In the case at bar, the amount consigned being P5,625.00, the respondent Metropolitan Trial Court correctly assumed jurisdiction over the same, in accordance with Section 33(1) of BP Blg. 129, which grants Metropolitan Trial Courts exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions where the amount of the demand does not exceed twenty thousand pesos exclusive of interests and costs.
• Proper Remedy: The Court considered the reasons for which G.R. No. 78438 was referred by the Supreme Court to the respondent appellate court, as stated in the resolution dated 19 August 1987, and further took into account that no reversible error was committed by the respondent Court of Appeals. Accordingly, the Court found no compelling reason to overturn the ruling in the questioned decision.
• Premature Issuance of Decision: The Court likewise found no reversible error in the Court of Appeals' issuance of its decision despite pending incidents before the Supreme Court, given the referral of the related case and the absence of any compelling reason to overturn the questioned decision.

• Consignation — Consignation is the act of depositing the thing due with the court or judicial authorities whenever the creditor cannot accept or refuses to accept payment, and it generally requires a prior tender of payment. The Court applied this doctrine to determine that the subject matter in consignation cases—the amount due—is capable of pecuniary estimation, and the amount sought to be consigned determines the jurisdiction of the court.
• Jurisdiction Determined by Amount Consigned — In a valid consignation where the thing sought to be deposited is a sum of money, the amount of the debt due is determinable, and this amount determines the jurisdiction of the court. The Court applied this principle to hold that the Metropolitan Trial Court correctly assumed jurisdiction over the consignation case where the amount consigned was P5,625.00, well below the P20,000.00 threshold under Section 33(1) of BP Blg. 129.

• "In a valid consignation where the thing sought to be deposited is a sum of money, the amount of the debt due is determinable. Clearly, the subject matter (i.e. the amount due) in consignation cases is capable of pecuniary estimation. This amount sought to be consigned determines the jurisdiction of the court." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi: the amount consigned, being the subject matter of the litigation, determines which court has jurisdiction over a consignation case.
• "Consignation is the act of depositing the thing due with the court or judicial authorities whenever the creditor cannot accept or refuses to accept payment and it generally requires a prior tender of payment." — This defines the doctrine of consignation as applied in the case, establishing the nature of the remedy and its requisites.

• Soco vs. Militante, G.R. No. 58961, June 28, 1983, 123 SCRA 160 — Cited as authority for the definition of consignation and the requisites of a valid consignation, including the requirement that there be a debt due and that the amount due be placed at the disposal of the court.
• Legaspi vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-45510, May 27, 1986, 142 SCRA 82 — Cited for the proposition that where no debt is due and owing, consignation is not proper.

• Article 1256, Civil Code — Enumerates the cases in which consignation may be availed of, including when the creditor refuses without just cause to accept payment, when the creditor is absent or unknown, when the creditor is incapacitated to receive payment, when the creditor refuses to give a receipt, when two or more persons claim the same right to collect, and when the title of the obligation has been lost. The Court cited this provision to establish the legal basis for the consignation remedy.
• Section 19(1), Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 — Provides that Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation. The Court considered this provision in addressing petitioner's argument that consignation cases fall within RTC jurisdiction.
• Section 33(1), Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 — States that Metropolitan Trial Courts and Municipal Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions where the amount of the demand does not exceed twenty thousand pesos exclusive of interests and costs. The Court applied this provision to hold that the Metropolitan Trial Court correctly assumed jurisdiction over the consignation case where the amount consigned was P5,625.00.

Melencio-Herrera, Paras, Sarmiento, and Regalado, JJ., concurred.

N/A — No dissenting opinions were noted in the decision.