MARIE ANTOINETTE R. SOLIVEN, petitioner, vs. FASTFORMS PHILIPPINES, INC., respondent.

G.R. No. 139031. October 18, 2004.*

Facts:

Marie Antoinette R. Soliven, petitioner, filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 60, Makati City a
complaint for sum of money with damages against Fastforms Philippines who obtained a loan
amounting to 170,000php with 3& interest from the former payable in 21 days. A postdated check was
issued. When the loan became due, the check was dishonored due to inssuficient funds.

Later, Respondent proposed to petitioner that the P175,000.00 be “rolled-over,” with a monthly interest
of 5% (or P8,755.00). Petitioner agreed to the proposal. However, despite demands, respondent refused
to pay its principal obligation and interests due.

Trial Court ruled in favor of petitioner. Respondent filed MR.

MR: respondent, for the first time the trial court’s jurisdiction. It alleged that since the amount of
petitioner’s principal demand (P195,155.00) does not exceed P200,000.00, the complaint should have
been filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court.

Petitioner opposed the motion for reconsideration, stressing that respondent is barred from assailing
the jurisdiction of the trial court since it has invoked the latter’s jurisdiction by seeking affirmative relief
in its answer to the complaint and actively participated in all stages of the trial.

Trial Court denied MR, holding that it has jurisdiction over the case because the totality of the claim
therein exceeds P200,000.00. The trial court also ruled that respondent, under the principle of estoppel,
has lost its right to question its jurisdiction.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s Decision on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
The Appellate Court held that the case is within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court,
petitioner’s claim being only P195,155.00; and that respondent may assail the jurisdiction of the trial
court anytime even for the first time on appeal. MR denied by CA.

Issue: w/n RTC has jurisdiction over the case - NO

w/n respondent is estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the trial court - YES

Held: No.

The main cause of action in this case is for the recovery of sum of money amounting to only
P195,155.00. The damages being claimed by petitioner are merely the consequences of this main cause
of action. Hence, they are not included in determining the jurisdictional amount. It is plain from R.A.
7691 and our Administrative Circular No. 09-94 that it is the Metropolitan Trial Court which has
jurisdiction over the instant case.

However, while it is true that jurisdiction may be raised at any time, “this rule presupposes that estoppel
has not supervened. In the instant case, respondent actively participated in all stages of the proceedings
before the trial court and invoked its authority by asking for an affirmative relief. Clearly, respondent is
estopped from challenging the trial court’s jurisdiction, especially when an adverse judgment has been
rendered.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated February 8, 1999 and
Resolution dated June 17, 1999 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 51946 are REVERSED. The
Decision dated July 3, 1995 and Resolution dated October 11, 1995 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch
60, Makati City in Civil Case No. 94- 1788 are hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.
Note, this case was decided in 2004, case of Figeroa vs. People was decided in 2008