TITLE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v.

CENTRAL SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY,

et al.
136 Phil. 239, Jan 31, 1969
Castro, J.,

TICKLER Deportation Bond

DOCTRINE The third-party complaint is but a continuation of the main action, its purpose being
merely to seek "contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other relief, in respect of
his opponent's claim." The aim is to avoid the actions which should be tried together
to save the time and cost of a reduplication of evidence, to obtain consistent results
from identical or similar evidence, and to do away with the serious handicap to a
defendant of a time difference between a judgment against him and a judgment in his
favor against the third party defendant.
SUMMARY Several E.Os was passed by Pres. Macapagal creating 33 municipalities in Mindanao.
Andong was one of them (EO 107)
FACTS 1. Centra Surety executed a bond in favor of the Deportation Board for Po Kee
Kam to be released temporarily.
2. Among the conditions in the bond is that Kam will be always available for the
Deportation Board and he will be present for the DB’s hearings.
3. In the event that Kam failed to comply, the bond will be automatically
forfeited in favor of the government.
4. Kam failed to attend hearings which prompted the DB to send notice to
Central. The DB likewise issued an order for the arrest of Kam.
5. Despite repeated demand from the DB, Central Surety refused to remit the
bond to them.
PETITIONER’S
ARGUMENTS xx
RESPONDENT’ (1) that its bond cannot be made liable beyond the amount of P5,000; (2) that it was
S ARGUMENTS not liable for attorney's fees in the absence of any stipulation to that effect; (3) that
the court did not have jurisdiction over the case as the amount involved was only
P5,000; and (4) that the Republic had no cause of action.
ISSUE Whether the CFI's dismissal of the Surety's third-party complaint was proper.
SC RULING When the Republic filed a collection suit against the Surety in 1963, the prevailing
rule was that CFIs were vested with jurisdiction over cases in which the demand,
exclusive of interest, or the value of the property in controversy, exceeds P10,000.
Since the demand in the present case was only for P6,000, then the Surety was
arguing that the case should have been properly filed with, or at the very least
remanded to, the MTC. In fact, it was only 2 days after the case was filed when RA
3828 took effect, which broadened the jurisdiction of municipal and city courts to
include cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, or the value of the property
in controversy, does not exceed P10,000.

But the SC held that the CFI acquired jurisdiction over the subject-matter when the
complaint was filed with it because "the rule is firmly entrenched in our law that
jurisdiction once acquired continues until the case is finally terminated." This is
regardless if the summons were served and the case was heard and decided after the
effectivity of RA 3828.

The conclusion therefore is that the CFI had proper jurisdiction over the case. The SC
held that the CFI's ruling ordering the Surety to pay P5,000 to the Republic was
proper because it was shown in court that the Surety received sufficient notice from
the Republic to have Kam appear in court. Granted, it was improper for the CFI to
dismiss the Surety's third-party complaint on jurisdictional grounds. In the present
case, the CFI dismissed the third-party complaint because it held that the demand
therein did not exceed P10,000 and was therefore not within the jurisdiction of the
Court of First Instance if it were an independent action.