This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-11-12 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| It is true that "[i]t is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading, but the payment of the prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action."[54] | |||||
|
2013-08-28 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The Court in Ungria v. Court of Appeals[37] restated the criterion laid down in Singson v. Isabela Sawmill[38] to ascertain if an action is capable or not of pecuniary estimation, viz:In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not capable of pecuniary estimation this Court has adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the principal action or remedy sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the municipal courts or in the [C]ourts of [F]irst [I]nstance would depend on the amount of the claim. However, where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money, where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief sought, this Court has considered such actions as cases where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable exclusively by [C]ourts of [F]irst [I]nstance (now Regional Trial Courts). | |||||