*

G.R. No. 166876. March 24, 2006.

1
ARTEMIO INIEGO,   petitioner,  vs.  The HONORABLE JUDGE GUILLERMO G. PURGANAN,
in his official capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 42, City of Manila,
and FOKKER C. SANTOS, respondents.

Civil Procedure; Courts; Jurisdictions; What must be determined to be capable or incapable of pecuniary

estimation is not the cause of action, but the subject matter of the action.—Respondent Judge’s observation is
erroneous. It is crystal clear from B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691, that what must be
determined to be capable or incapable of pecuniary estimation is not the cause of action, but the  subject
matter of the action. A cause of action is “the delict or wrongful act or omission committed by the defendant
in violation of the primary rights of the plaintiff.” On the other hand, the “subject matter of the action” is
“the physical facts, the thing real or personal, the money, lands, chattels, and the like, in relation to which
the suit is prosecuted, and not the delict or wrong committed by the defendant.”
Same; Same; Same; Damages; Actions for damages based on quasi-delicts are primarily and effectively
actions for the recovery of a sum of money for the damages suffered because of the defendant’s alleged tortious
acts.—Actions for damages based on quasi-delicts are primarily and effectively actions for the recovery of a
sum of money for the damages suffered because of the defendant’s alleged tortious acts. The damages
claimed in such actions represent the monetary equivalent of the injury caused to the plaintiff by the
defendant, which are thus sought to be recovered by the plaintiff. This money claim is the principal relief
sought, and is not merely incidental thereto or a consequence thereof. It bears to point out that the
complaint filed by private respondent before the RTC actually bears the caption “for DAMAGES.”
Same; Same; Same; Same; Subsection (d) of Section 5, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court provides that where
the claims in all such joined causes of action are principally for recovery of money, the aggregate

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.
1 Also spelled as Iñego in some parts of the Rollo and Records.

395

VOL. 485, MARCH 24, 2006 395

Iniego vs. Purganan

amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction.—Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the
claims for moral and exemplary damages arose from a cause of action other than the quasi-delict, their
inclusion in the computation of damages for jurisdictional purposes is still proper. 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.
Same;  Same;  Same;  Same;  Actions for damages based on quasidelicts are actions that are capable of
pecuniary estimation.—Actions for damages based on quasi-delicts are actions that are capable of pecuniary
estimation. As such, they fall within the jurisdiction of either the RTC or the municipal courts, depending on
the amount of damages claimed. In this case, the amount of damages claimed is within the jurisdiction of
the RTC, since it is the claim for all kinds of damages that is the basis of determining the jurisdiction of
courts, whether the claims for damages arise from the same or from different causes of action.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     Rene A. Elevazo for petitioner.

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:

For this Court to grant this petition for review on certiorariunder Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,
petitioner has to persuade us on two engaging questions of law. First, he has to convince us that
actions for damages based on quasi-delict are actions that are  capable  of pecuniary estimation,
and therefore would fall under the jurisdiction of the municipal courts if the claim does not
exceed the jurisdictional amount of P400,000.00 in Metro Manila. Second, he has to convince us
396

396 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Iniego vs. Purganan

that the moral and exemplary damages claimed by the private respondent should be excluded
from the computation of the above-mentioned jurisdictional amount because they arose from a
cause of action other than the negligent act of the defendant.
Petitioner urges us to reverse the 28 October 2004 Decision and 26 January 2005 Resolution of
the Court of Appeals, Eighth Division, in  CA-G.R. SP No. 76206  denying due course to the
petition for certiorari filed by petitioner under Rule 65, elevating the 21 October 2002 Omnibus
Order and the 21 January 2003 Order of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 42, City of
Manila. The dispositive portion of the 28 October 2004 Decision of the Court of Appeals reads:
2
“WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED DUE COURSE and DISMISSED for lack of merit.”

The factual and procedural antecedents of this case are as follows:

On 1 March 2002, private respondent Fokker Santos filed a complaint for quasi-delict and
damages against Jimmy T. Pinion, the driver of a truck involved in a traffic accident, and against
petitioner Artemio Iniego, as owner of the said truck and employer of Pinion. The complaint
stemmed from a vehicular accident that happened on 11 December 1999, when a freight truck
allegedly being driven by Pinion hit private respondent’s jitney which private respondent was
driving at the time of the accident.
On 24 August 2002, private respondent filed a Motion to Declare defendant in Default
allegedly for failure of the latter to file his answer within the final extended period. On 28 August
2002, petitioner filed a Motion to Admit and a Motion to Dismiss the complaint on the ground,
among other things, that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the cause of action of the case.

_______________
2 Rollo, p. 17.

397

VOL. 485, MARCH 24, 2006 397

 Iniego vs. Purganan

On 21 October 2002, public respondent Judge Guillermo G. Purganan, acting as presiding judge
of the RTC, Branch 42, Manila, issued the assailed Omnibus Order denying the Motion to
Dismiss of the petitioner and the Motion to Declare Defendant in Default of the private
respondent. Pertinent portions of the Omnibus Order and the dispositive portion thereof read:

“In his opposition to the motion to declare him in default and his Motion to Admit defendant IÑEGO alleged
that he never received the Order dated 12 August 2002. But believing in good faith, without being
presumptuous, that his 3rd Motion for additional Time to file or any appropriate [pleading] would be
granted, he filed the aforesaid Motion received by the Court on 23 August 2002.
The explanation of defendant IÑEGO has merit. The order dated 12 August 2002 was sent to a wrong
address, thus defendant IÑEGO did not receive it. Since it was not received, he was not aware that the court
would grant no further extension. The Motion to Admit Motion to Dismiss has to be granted and the Motion
to declare Defendant IÑEGO [in default] has to be DENIED.
xxxx
The plaintiff opines that this court has exclusive jurisdiction because the cause of action is the claim for
damages, which exceeds P400,000.00. The complaint prays for actual damages in the amount of P40,000.00,
moral damages in the amount of P300,000.00, and exemplary damages in the amount of P150,000.00.
Excluding attorney’s fees in the amount of P50,000.00, the total amount of damages being claimed is
P490,000.00.
Proceeding on the assumption that the cause of action is the claim of (sic) for damages in the total
amount of P490,000.00, this court has jurisdiction. But is the main cause of action the claim for damages?
This court is of the view that the main cause of action is not the claim for damages but quasi-delict.
Damages are being claimed only as a result of the alleged fault or negligence of both defendants under
Article 2176 of the Civil Code in the case of defendant Pinion and under Article 2180 also of the Civil Code
in the case of defendant Iniego. But since fault or negligence (quasi-delicts) could not be the subject of
pecuniary estimation, this court has exclusive jurisdiction.

398

398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Iniego vs. Purganan

xxxx
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing,
3
the motion to declare defendant Iniego in default and the said
defendant’s motion to dismiss are denied.”

On 7 November 2002, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Omnibus Order of 21
October 2002. On 21 January 2003, public respondent issued an Order denying petitioner’s
motion for reconsideration. Pertinent portions of the 21 January 2003 Order are reproduced
hereunder:
What this court referred to in its Order sought to be reconsidered as not capable of pecuniary estimation is
the CAUSE OF ACTION, which is quasi-delict and NOT the amount of damage prayed for.
xxxx 4
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.”

Petitioner elevated the 21 October 2002 and 21 January 2003 Orders of the RTC to the Court of
Appeals on petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. On 28 October 2004, the
Court of Appeals promulgated the assailed Decision, the dispositive portion thereof reads:
5
“WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED DUE COURSE and dismissed for lack of merit.”
On 22 November 2004, petitioner moved for reconsideration, which was denied by the Court of
Appeals on 26 January 2005. Hence, this present petition.
Petitioner claims that actions for damages based on quasidelict are actions that are capable of
pecuniary estimation; hence, the jurisdiction in such cases falls upon either the

_______________
3 Id., p. 35.
4 Id., p. 40.
5 Id., p. 17.

399

VOL. 485, MARCH 24, 2006 399

Iniego vs. Purganan

municipal courts (the Municipal Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts
In Cities, And Municipal Circuit Trial Courts), or the Regional Trial Courts, depending on the
value of the damages claimed.
Petitioner argues further that should this Court find actions for damages capable of pecuniary
estimation, then the total amount of damages claimed by the private respondent must exceed
P400,000.00 in order that it may fall under the jurisdiction of the RTC. Petitioner asserts,
however, that the moral and exemplary damages claimed by private respondent be excluded from
the computation of the total amount of damages for jurisdictional purposes because the said
moral and exemplary damages arose, not from the quasi-delict, but from the petitioner’s refusal
to pay the actual damages.

Actions for damages based on quasi-delicts are primarily and effectively actions for
the recovery of a sum of money for the damages suffered because of the de-fendant’s
alleged tortious acts,
6
and are therefore capable of pecuniary estimation.
In a recent case,  we did affirm the jurisdiction of a Municipal Circuit Trial Court in actions for
damages based on quasi-delict, although the ground used to challenge said jurisdiction was an
alleged forum shopping, and not the applicability of Section 19(1) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129.
According to respondent Judge, what he referred to in his assailed Order as not capable of
pecuniary estimation
7
is the cause of action, which is a quasi-delict, and not the amount of damage
prayed for.  From this, respondent Judge concluded that since fault or negligence in quasi-delicts
cannot be the

_______________
6 See Casupanan v. Laroya, 436 Phil. 582, 592; 388 SCRA 28, 42 (2002).
7 Rollo, p. 40.

400

400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Iniego vs. Purganan
subject of pecuniary estimation,8 the RTC has jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals affirmed
respondent Judge in this respect.
Respondent Judge’s observation is erroneous. It is crystal clear from B.P. Blg. 129, as amended
by Republic Act No. 7691, that what must be determined to be capable or 9
incapable of pecuniary
estimation is not the cause of action, but the subject matter of the action.  A cause of action is “the
delict or wrongful
10
act or omission committed by the defendant in violation of the primary rights of
the plaintiff.”   On the other hand, the “subject matter of the action” is “the physical facts, the
thing real or personal, the money, lands, chattels, and the like, in relation
11
to which the suit is
prosecuted, and not the delict or wrong committed 12 by the defendant.”
The case of  Lapitan v. Scandia, Inc., et al.,   has guided this Court time and again in
determining whether the subject

_______________
8 Rollo, p. 16.
9  Batas Pambansa Blg.  129, Sec. 19:  Jurisdiction in Civil Cases.—Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive
jurisdiction:

(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation;
(2) x x x x

10 Joseph v. Bautista, G.R. No. 41423, 23 February 1989, 170 SCRA 540, 544.

11 Mathay v. Consolidated Bank and Trust Company, 157 Phil. 551, 565; 58 SCRA 559, 571 (1974).
12 133 Phil. 526; 24 SCRA 479 (1968); See Spouses Huguete v. Spouses Embudo, 453 Phil. 170, 176-177; 405 SCRA 273,

278 (2003);  Radio Communications of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals,  435 Phil. 62, 66;  386 SCRA 67, 70
(2002); Barangay San Roque, Talisay, Cebu v. Heirs of Pastor, 389 Phil. 467, 471; 334 SCRA 127, 132 (2000); Russell v.
Vestil, 364 Phil. 392, 400; 304 SCRA 738, 744 (1999); De Leon v. Court of Appeals, 350 Phil. 535, 541; 287 SCRA 94, 99
(1998); Raymundo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97805, 2 September 1992, 213 SCRA 457, 460-461; Amorganda v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 80040, 30 September 1988, 166 SCRA 203, 212;  Singsong v. Isabela Sawmill,  G.R. No. L-27343, 28
February 1979, 88 SCRA 623, 637.

401

VOL. 485, MARCH 24, 2006 401

Iniego vs. Purganan

matter of the action is capable of pecuniary estimation. In Lapitan, the Court spoke through the
eminent Mr. Justice Jose B.L. Reyes:
“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 courts of first
instance [now Regional Trial Courts] 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 like suits to have the defendant perform
his part of the contract (specific performance) and in actions for support, or for annulment of a judgment or
to foreclose a mortgage, this court has considered such actions as cases where the subject of the litigation
may not be estimated in terms 13
of money, and are cognizable exclusively by courts of first instance [now
Regional Trial Courts]. x x x.”  (Emphasis supplied.)

Actions for damages based on quasi-delicts are primarily and effectively actions for the recovery
of a sum of money for the damages suffered because of the defendant’s alleged tortious acts. The
damages claimed in such actions represent the monetary equivalent of the injury caused to the
plaintiff by the defendant, which are thus sought to be  recovered  by the plaintiff. This money
claim is the principal relief sought, and is not merely incidental thereto or a consequence thereof.
It bears to point out that the complaint filed by private respondent before the RTC actually bears
the caption “for DAMAGES.”
Fault or negligence, which the Court of Appeals claims is not capable of pecuniary estimation,
is not actionable by itself. For such fault or negligence to be actionable, there must be a resulting
damage to a third person. The relief available

_______________
13 Lapitan v. Scandia, Inc., et al., Id., at p. 528; p. 481.

402

402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Iniego vs. Purganan

to the offended party in such cases is for the reparation, restitution, or payment of such damage,
without which any alleged offended party has no cause of action or relief. The fault or negligence
of the defendant, therefore, is inextricably intertwined with the claim for damages, and there can
be no action based on quasi-delict without a claim for damages.
We therefore rule that the subject matter of actions for damages based on quasi-delict is
capable of pecuniary estimation.

II

The amount of damages claimed is within the jurisdiction of the RTC, since it is the
claim for all kinds of damages that is the basis of determining the jurisdiction of
courts, whether the claims for damages arise from the same or from different causes of
action.
Despite our concurrence in petitioner’s claim that actions for damages based on quasi-delict
are actions that are capable of pecuniary estimation, we find that the total amount of damages
claimed by the private respondent nevertheless still exceeds the jurisdictional limit of
P400,000.00 and remains under the jurisdiction of the RTC.
Petitioner argues that in actions for damages based on quasi-delict, claims for damages arising
from a different cause of action (i.e., other than the fault or negligence of the defendant) should
not be included in the computation of the jurisdictional amount. According to petitioner, the
moral and exemplary damages claimed by the respondents in the case at bar are not direct and
proximate consequences of the alleged negligent act. Petitioner points out that the complaint
itself stated that such moral and exemplary damages arose from the alleged refusal of defendants
to honor the demand for damages, and therefore there is no reasonable cause and effect between
the fault or negligence of the defendant and
403

VOL. 485, MARCH 24, 2006 403

Iniego vs. Purganan
14
the claim for moral and exemplary damages.  If the claims for moral and exemplary damages are
not included in the computation for purposes of determining jurisdiction, only the claim for actual
damages in the amount of P40,000.00 will be considered, and the MeTC will have jurisdiction.
We cannot give credence to petitioner’s arguments. The distinction he made between damages
arising directly from injuries in a quasi-delict and those arising from a refusal to admit liability
for a quasi-delict is more apparent than real, as the damages sought by respondent originate from
the same cause of action: the quasi-delict. The fault or negligence of the employee and the juris
tantumpresumption of negligence of his employer in his selection and supervision are the seeds of
the damages claimed, without distinction.
Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the claims for moral and exemplary damages
arose from a cause of action other than the quasi-delict, their inclusion in the computation of
damages for jurisdictional purposes is still proper. 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 are15 principally for
recovery of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction.
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.

_______________
14 Rollo, p. 68.
15 See also SC Administrative Circular No. 09-04 (1994).

404

404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Iniego vs. Purganan

In sum, actions for damages based on quasi-delicts are actions that are  capable  of pecuniary
estimation. As such, they fall within the jurisdiction of either the RTC or the municipal courts,
depending on the amount of damages claimed. In this case, the amount of damages claimed is
within the jurisdiction of the RTC, since it is the claim for all kinds of damages that is the basis of
determining the jurisdiction of courts, whether the claims for damages arise from the same or
from different causes of action.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The
Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated 28 October 2004 and 26 January 2005,
respectively, are AFFIRMED insofar as they held that the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.

     Panganiban (C.J., Chairperson), Ynares-Santiago, Austria-Martinez and Callejo, Sr., JJ.,

concur.

Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.

Notes.—In  quasi-delict, exemplary damages are awarded when the act or omission which
caused injury is attended by gross negligence. (Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals, 321 SCRA 524[1999])
 Pursuant to Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended in 1988,
civil actions to recover liability arising from crime (ex delicto) and under Articles 32, 33, 34 and
2176 of the Civil Code (quasi-delict) are deemed impliedly instituted with the criminal action
unless waived, reserved or previously instituted. The reservation requirement does not impair,
diminish or defeat substantive rights, but only regulates their exercise in the general interest of
orderly procedure. (Hambon vs. Court of Appeals, 399 SCRA 255 [2003])

——o0o——