MAKATI DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, plaintiffappellant, vs. PEDRO C. TANJUATCO and CONCRETE AGGREGATES, INC., defendants-appellees. G.R. No. L-26443
Mar! 2", #$6$
CONCEPCION, C.J.: %a&'( Plaintiff Makati Dev’t Corp and defendant Tanjuatco entered into a contract whereby the latter bound hiself to constr construct uct a reinfo reinforce rced d concre concrete te co cover vered ed wate waterr reserv reservoi oirr, offi of fice ce and and pup pup ho hous use e and and wate waterr ain ain at !orb !orbes es Pa Park rk,, furnishin" the aterials necessary therefor. #efore akin" the final payent of the consideration a"reed upon, plaintiff in$uired fro the suppliers of aterials, who had called its attention to unpaid bills of Tanjuatco, whether the latter had settled his accounts with the. %n response to this in$uiry, Concrete &""re"ates, %nc. 'supplier( ade a clai in the su of P), P),*+ *+.) .),, repres represen entin tin" " the cos costt of trans transit it- -ie ied d concrete alle"edly delivered to Tanjuatco. /ith his consent, plaintiff withheld said aount fro the final payent ade to hi and, in view of his subse$uent failure to settle the issu issue e ther thereo eon n with with the the 0u 0upp ppli lier er,, plai plaint ntif ifff inst instit itut uted ed the the present action a"ainst Tanjuatco and the 0upplier, to copel the 1to interplead their conflictin" clais.1 Tanjuatco oved to disiss the case, upon the "round that the court had no jurisdiction over the subject-atter of the liti liti"a "ati tion on,, the the aou aount nt invo involv lved ed ther therei ein n bein bein" " less less than than P*2,222.22. The lower court "ranted the sae and disi disisse ssed d the cas case. e. 3ence, 3ence, this this appeal appeal.. Plain Plaintif tifff conten contends ds that the C!% has jurisdiction because the subject-atter of this liti"ation is not the aforeentioned su of P),*+.), but the ri"ht to copel the defendants 1to liti"ate aon" theselves1.
I'')*( Does the C!% have jurisdiction over the case4 +*d( 5o. Plaintiff ay copel the defendants to interplead aon" theselves concernin" the aforeentioned su of P),*+.). The issue of who aon" the defendants is entitled to collect the sae is the object of the action and is not within the jurisdiction of the C!%. The plaintiff in assertin" the jurisdiction of the C!% relies upon 6ule 78 of the present 6ules of Court, prescribin" the procedure in cases of interpleadin", and section *+ of 6ule ), which oits the 6ules on %nterpleadin" aon" those ade applicable to inferior courts. 3owever, the jurisdiction of our courts over the subject-atter of justiciable controversies is "overned by 6ep. &ct 5o. 9+7, as aended, pursuant to which unicipal courts shall have eclusive ori"inal jurisdiction in all civil cases 1in which the deand, eclusive of interest, or the value of the property in controversy1, aounts to not ore than P3P*2,222. 0econdly, 1the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts1 belon"s to Con"ress and is beyond the rule-akin" power of the 0upree Court, which is liited to atters concernin" pleadin", practice, and procedure in all courts, and the adission to the practice of law. Thirdly, the failure of said section *+ of 6ule ) of the present 6ules of Court to ake its 6ule 78, on interpleadin", applicable to inferior courts, erely iplies that the sae are not bound to follow 6ule 78 in dealin" with cases of interpleadin", but ay apply thereto the "eneral rules on procedure applicable to ordinary civil action in said courts.
