Civil Procedures (d) Individual is a natural person;

Small Claims ➔ a law student, a professor, etc.

Small Claims, defined. (e) Motion means a party’s request, written or

These are civil claims which are exclusively for oral, to the court for an order or other action. It
the payment or reimbursement of a sum of shall include an informal written request to the
money not exceeding P300,000.00 (OCA court, such as a letter;
Circular No. 165-2018, amending Section 2 of ➔ Motion to present additional evidence
the Revised Rules for Small Claims Cases,
A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC). (f) Good cause means circumstances
sufficient to justify the requested order or other
Objectives of Small Claims action, as determined by the judge; and
As provided in Section 3 of the Revised Rules ➔ Justification or substantial ground such
for Small Claims cases, the objectives of small as serious illness justifying additional
claims cases are: time to take the legal action
a. To protect and advance the
constitutional right of persons to a (g) Affidavit means a written statement or
speedy disposition of their cases; declaration of facts that are sworn to or
b. To provide a simplified and affirmed to be true.
inexpensive procedure for the
disposition of small claims cases; and, What rules apply to small claims?
c. To introduce innovations and best Under Section 5 of the Revised Rules, the
practices for the benefit of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
underprivileged. Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall apply this
Definitions of terms for Small Claims Rule in all actions that are purely civil in nature
(Section 4, Revised Rules of Claims) where the claim or relief prayed for by the
(a) Plaintiff refers to the party who initiated a plaintiff is solely for payment or reimbursement
small claims action. The term includes a of sum of money, not exceeding
defendant who has filed a counterclaim Php300,000.00.
against plaintiff;
➔ The creditor, in most cases. The claim or demand may be:
1. for a sum of money owed under any of
(b) Defendant is the party against whom the the following: (i) contract of loan; (ii)
plaintiff has filed a small claims action. The contract of services; (iii) contract of
term includes a plaintiff against whom a sale; or (iv) contract of mortgage;
defendant has filed a claim, or a person who 2. for liquidated damages arising from
replies to the claim; contracts; or
➔ The debtor, in most cases. 3. for enforcement of a barangay
amicable settlement or an arbitration
(c) Person is an individual, corporation, award involving a money claim.
partnership, limited liability partnership,
association, or other juridical entity endowed Where do I file my small claims case?
with personality by law; A small claims case is filed with the
➔ Any individual or entity who can enter Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court
into contracts in Cities, Municipal Trial Court and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts. Since this is a civil case, it Multiplicity of Suits and two (2) duly
must be filed in the city: certified photocopies of the actionable
a. Where the Plaintiff (the person suing) document/s subjects of the claim, as
resides; or well as the affidavits of witnesses and
b. Where the Defendant (the person other evidence to support the claim. No
being sued) resides; or evidence shall be allowed during the
c. If the Plaintiff is in the business of hearing which was not attached to or
lending, banking and similar activities, submitted together with the Claim,
in the city where the Defendant unless good cause is shown for the
resides, if the Plaintiff has a branch in admission of additional evidence.
that city.

Q: If the contract of loan between the plaintiff

and the defendant has an express provision
that venue is stipulated in a specific area,
which is controlling – the stipulated venue or
2nd paragraph of Section 7?

A: While the contract has the force of law

between the parties involved, Section 7 shall
still apply because the Revised Rules is a
special rule of procedure. It is controlling over
stipulations in a contract. b. The plaintiff shall pay the docket and
other legal fees, unless allowed to
What is the procedure for small claims? litigate as an indigent.

c. The court examines the claim. It may

dismiss the case outright if it finds
grounds to justify the dismissal.

d. If no ground for dismissal is found, the

court shall issue Summons on the day
of receipt of the Statement of Claim,
directing the defendant to submit a
verified Response.

Dismissal: can be done even if not

pleaded in Defendant’s Response
a. A small claims action is commenced by
filing with the court an accomplished
Grounds for Dismissal: plaintiff
and verified Statement of Claim in
misrepresents that he/she/ it is not
duplicate, accompanied by a
engaged in the business of banking,
Certification of Non-Forum Shopping,
lending or similar activities when in fact
Splitting a Cause of Action and
 he/she/it is so engaged -> can be filing of the Statement of Claim/s; and
charged with direct contempt (b) the express prohibition against the
filing of a motion to dismiss or any
If case for summary / regular other motion under Section 16 of this
procedure: re-docketed and returned Rule.
to court where it was assigned subject
to payment of any deficiency in the Can lawyers appear in the hearing?
applicable regular rate of filing fees.
Lawyers are not allowed to appear in behalf of
If other way around: case shall be or represent a party.
referred to the Executive Judge for
appropriate The small claims procedure contains a
assignment. prohibition against counsels appearing in
court. The scheme in Small Claims
proceedings is that they are not required to
prepare their own pleadings. In Metro Manila,
the MTC assigned to entertain these claims
If not dismissal – Court issues have ready forms for complaints or answer to
Summons on the day of receipt of the be filed in court. Minimal docket fee is paid.
Statement of Claim/s, directing the
defendant to submit a verified The Supreme Court has already made
Response. It shall be accompanied by templated forms for the following:
a copy of the Statement of Claim/s and a. Statement of Claim
documents submitted by plaintiff, and b. Verification and Certification of Non-
a blank Response Form (Form 3-SCC) forum Shopping, Splitting a Cause of
to be accomplished by the defendant. Action and Multiplicity of Suits
c. Response
e. If the Defendant cannot be served with d. Plaintiff’s Return/ Manifestation
Summons, the court shall order the e. Motion to Plead as Indigent
Plaintiff to cause the service of f. Special Power of Attorney
summons within thirty (30) days from g. Joint Motion for DIimissal
Notice. Otherwise, the case shall be h. Motion for Approval of Compromise
dismissed. Agreement
i. Motion for Execution

These forms may be secured from the courts.

f. The court shall also issue a Notice to
both parties, directing them to appear Can a representative appear in the
before it on a specific date and time for hearing?
hearing, with a warning that no As a general rule parties shall personally
unjustified postponement shall be appear on the designated date of hearing.
allowed. Appearance through a representative is
permitted if it is for a valid cause and the
A Notice of Hearing shall accompany representative must be a relative of the
the Summons and shall contain: (a) the individual party and NOT a lawyer.
date of the hearing, which shall not be Furthermore, the representative must be
more than thirty (30) days from the armed with a Special Power of Attorney.
Juridical entities shall not be represented by
a lawyer in any capacity. The representative
must be authorized under a Special Power of g. The defendant shall file with the court
Attorney to enter into an amicable settlement and serve on the plaintiff a duly
of the dispute and to enter into stipulations or accomplished and verified Response
admissions of facts and of documentary within a non – extendible period of ten
exhibits. (10) days from receipt of summons.
The Response shall be accompanied
Only time an attorney may represent a party is by certified photocopies of documents,
when: as well as affidavits of witnesses and
1. Attorney is the plaintiff or defendant; or other evidence in support thereof. No
2. The court determines that a party evidence shall be allowed during the
cannot properly present his/her claim hearing which was not attached to or
or defense and needs assistance. submitted together with the Response,
unless good cause is shown for the
The court, in its discretion, may allow another admission of additional evidence.
individual who is not an attorney to assist that
party upon the latter’s consent. The court shall render judgment on the
same day, as may be warranted by the
What happens if the parties fail to appear? facts alleged in the Statement of
Claim/s.
Failure of the plaintiff to appear shall be cause
for the dismissal of the Statement of Claim/s BUT: Should the defendant fail to file
without prejudice. The defendant who appears his/her/its Response within the
in the absence of the plaintiff shall be entitled required period but appears on the
to judgment on a permissive counterclaim. date set for hearing, the court shall
ascertain what defense he/she/it has to
Failure of the defendant to appear shall have offer which shall constitute his/ her/its
the same effect as failure to file a Response Response, and proceed to hear or
under Section 14 of this Rule. This shall not adjudicate the case on the same day
apply where one of two or more defendants as if a Response has been filed.
who are sued under a common cause of action
and have pleaded a common defense appears If at the time the action is commenced,
at the hearing. the defendant possesses a claim
against the plaintiff that:
Failure of both parties to appear shall cause
the dismissal with prejudice of both the a. is within the coverage of this Rule,
Statement of Claim/s and the counterclaim. exclusive of interest and costs;
b. arises out of the same transaction
Postponement of Hearing: may be granted or event that is the subject matter
only upon proof of the physical inability of the of the plaintiff’s claim;
party to appear before the court on the c. does not require for it adjudication
scheduled date and time. A party may avail of the joinder of third parties; and
only one (1) postponement d. is not the subject of another
pending action, the claim shall be
 filed as a counterclaim in the Can the decision of the small claims court
Response; be appealed?
Otherwise, the defendant shall be barred from
The right of appeal is not part of the
suing on the counterclaim.
constitutionally guaranteed right to due
The defendant may also elect to file a process. The right to appeal is merely a
counterclaim against the plaintiff that does not statutory privilege, which may be exercised
arise out of the same transaction or only in the manner and in accordance with the
occurrence, provided that the amount and provisions of the law authorizing such
nature thereof are within the coverage of this exercise.
Rule and the prescribed docket and other legal
fees are paid. Why none here: in line with the nature of
small claims, and is designed to preclude
unnecessary or unmeritorious appeals that
result in long drawn litigation for cases of this
nature, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s
constitutional mandate to enact rules of
h. The parties shall appear at the procedure.
designated date of hearing personally
or through a representative authorized What is a Joinder of Claims?
under a Special Power of Attorney. · A plaintiff can ask for more than one
However, a lawyer cannot appear to separate small claims against a defendant
represent the party. · All the small claims will be placed in a
single statement
i. At the hearing, the judge shall exert · OCA-Circular 165-2018: Starting August
efforts to bring the parties to an 7, 2018, the small claims cannot exceed
amicable settlement. P300,000. Before that, the amount was
P200,000.
j. If the case is settled, the settlement
shall be reduced into writing, signed by What is an Affidavit?
the parties and submitted to the court An affidavit must be submitted to validate a
for approval claim or counterclaim. The affidavits submitted
under this Rule shall state only facts of direct
k. If no settlement is reached, the hearing personal knowledge of the affiants or based on
shall so proceed in an informal and authentic records, which are admissible in
expeditious manner and terminated evidence.
within the same day.
A violation of this requirement shall subject the
party, and the counsel who assisted the party
in the preparation of the affidavits, if any, to
l. After the hearing, the court shall render appropriate disciplinary action. The
its decision within twenty-four (24) inadmissible affidavit(s) or portion(s) thereof
hours from termination of the hearing. shall be expunged from the record.
The decision shall immediately be
entered by the Clerk of Court in the The non-submission of the required affidavits
court docket and a copy thereof will cause the immediate dismissal of the claim
forthwith served on the parties. or counterclaim.
 2. Motion for a bill of particulars;
Payment of Filing Fees 3. Motion for new trial, or for
As a general rule payment of docket and legal reconsideration of a judgment, or for
fees shall be guided under Rule 141 of the reopening of trial;
Revised Rules of Court. 4. Petition for relief from judgment;
5. Motion for extension of time to file
Exemption from the payment of filing fees pleadings, affidavits, or any other
shall be granted only by the Supreme Court. paper;
6. Memoranda;
If more than five (5) small claims are filed 7. Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or
by one party within the calendar year, prohibition against any interlocutory
regardless of the judicial station, an additional order issued by the court;
filing fee of: 8. Motion to declare the defendant in
· 500.00 shall be paid for every claim default;
filed after the fifth (5th) claim, 9. Dilatory motions for postponement;
· 100.00 or a total of 600.00 for every 10. Reply and rejoinder;
claim filed after the tenth (10th) claim; 11. Third-party complaints; and
and 12. Interventions.
· 100.00 or a total of 700 for every claim
filed after the fifteenth (15th) claim. Issues:
As much as the Supreme Court wanted to
Plaintiffs engaged in the business of improve the Rue on Small Claims, after one
banking, lending and similar activities, the year of implementation, some serious issues
amount of filing and other legal fees shall be arose, which somehow counter the positive
the same as those applicable to cases filed effects of the rule on small claims and
under the regular rules. ultimately defeat the very purpose of the rule
on small claims.
A claim filed with a motion to sue as indigent
shall be referred to the Executive Judge for 1. Due to an increase in the jurisdictional
immediate action in case of multisala courts. If amount from Php 100,000.00 to Php
the motion is granted by the Executive Judge, 300,000.00, there is an increase in the
the case shall be raffled off or assigned to the number of cases filed in court. It
court designated to hear small claims cases. attracts lending companies to file more
cases in court thus, it does not help in
If the motion is denied, the plaintiff shall be decongesting our courts.
given five (5) days within which to pay the
docket fees, otherwise, the case shall be 2. Php 200,000.00 is not a small amount.
dismissed without prejudice. A person having this amount of
receivable can hire an attorney to
In no case shall a party, even if declared an pursue their claims, the Small claims
indigent, be exempt from the payment of the rule should help those who have less
P1,000.00 fee for service of summons and in life and not these loan and lending
processes. companies.

Prohibited Pleadings and Motions 3. Some argued that it is a one-time

1. Motion to dismiss the Statement of hearing, but they failed to recognize
Claim/s; that in a court of calendar cases, 5-10
 small claims cases in a hearing day is What if the case is dismissed with
a big number. If these were all heard prejudice? what if the defendant loses
and later on submitted for decision, the the case due to a technicality? What
judge needs to make a decision on should they do if appeal is not
those cases immediately. Noted also applicable? Under the Rules of Court,
that there are still cases falling under if appeal is not available as a remedy,
the summary and/or regular procedure the party may file a petition for
which is also calendared for that day. It certiorari under Rule 65. So is this the
may also be argued further that remedy the Supreme Court wants in
decisions in small claims cases are order to have a speedy disposition of
pro-forma, but it is not always the case. cases? it is submitted that making a
Some cases have complicated set of decision final and executory and
facts and issues especially those making it not subject to appeal makes
involving claims up to Php 200,000.00. the disposition of cases fast and
The judge needs to study the cases. inexpensive but what if there has been
Also, in heavily docketed courts like in an error committed by the trial court?
Muntinlupa City, the average number
of small claims filed in Metropolitan Cases:
Trial Court is 10-12 per week or 40-48 AL Ang Network Inc v. Emma Mondejar
cases per month. This number is (G.R. 200804)
alright if there is no other cases.
Doctrine:
4. The exclusion of claims due to fault Immediate execution in Small Claims cases.
and/ or negligence frustrates the ends Section 23 of the Rule of Procedure for Small
of justice. As observed in reckless Claims Cases states that the decision shall
imprudence cases, the injured party immediately be entered by the Clerk of Court
usually are burdened with so many in the court docket for civil cases and a copy
expenses and one way to ease those thereof forthwith served on the parties.
burdens is to have a system for them
to file their claim in a simple and Certiorari in Small Claims cases: The
inexpensive way. The exclusion results extraordinary
to the need of the injured party to hire writ of certiorari is always available where
lawyers to pursue their case which there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy
means, additional expenses. and adequate remedy in the ordinary course
of law."
5. The decision in small claims cases are
final and executory and not Sec 23 of the Rule of Procedure for small
appealable. We must admit that no claims: "SEC. 23. Decision. — After the
matter how simple a case may be, hearing, the court shall render its decision on
judges may commit mistakes, errors the same day, based on the facts established
and the sad part of it, in small claims by the evidence (Form 13-SCC). The decision
cases, when the court dismisses the shall immediately be entered by the Clerk of
case or renders judgment, technically Court in the court docket for civil cases and a
it’s a dead end. You’re lucky if your copy thereof forthwith served on the parties.
case is dismissed without prejudice, it The decision shall be final and unappealable."
can be re-filed, but what if the party has
no money to refile again the case? Facts:
The Petitioner filed a complaint for sum of Yes, the RTC erred in dismissing the Certiorari
money under the Rule of Procedure for Small petition outright.
Claims Cases before the MTCC, seeking to The court held that although the nature of a
collect from respondent the amount of small claims case decision does not have the
₱23,111.71 which represented her unpaid remedy of appeal, and the prevailing party
water bills. may immediately move for its execution. This
DOES NOT preclude the aggrieved party from
In defense, respondent contended that since filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of
April 1998 up to February 2003, she religiously the Rules of Court. In several cases the court
paid petitioner the agreed monthly flat rate of held that "the extraordinary writ of certiorari is
₱75.00 for her water consumption. always available where there is no appeal or
Notwithstanding their agreement that the any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy
same would be adjusted only upon prior in the ordinary course of law."
notice, petitioner allegedly unilaterally charged
her unreasonable and excessive adjustments. Verily, a petition for certiorari, unlike an
appeal, is an original action designed to
The MTCC rendered a Decision in favor of correct only errors of jurisdiction and not of
Respondent finding petitioner was issued a judgment. Owing to its nature, it is therefore
Certificate of Public Convenience only on incumbent upon petitioner to establish that
August 7, 2003, then, Petitioner can only jurisdictional errors tainted the MTCC
charge respondent the agreed flat rate of Decision. The RTC, in turn, could either grant
₱75.00 per month prior thereto or the sum of or dismiss the petition based on an evaluation
₱1,050.00 for the period June 1, 2002 to of whether or not the MTCC gravely abused its
August 7, 2003. Given that respondent had discretion by capriciously, whimsically, or
made total payments equivalent to ₱1,685.99 arbitrarily disregarding evidence that is
for the same period, she should be considered material to the controversy.
to have fully paid petitioner. In this cases the RTC’s erred in dismissing the
case outright reasoning that respondent’s
Aggrieved Petitioner filed a case to the RTC, recourse before it was only filed to circumvent
contending MTCC’s decision was tainted with the non-appealable nature of [small claims
grave abuse of discretion as it failed to cases] because it asks the court to supplant
establish the respondents obligation. The RTC the decision of the lower court with another
issued a Decision dismissing the petition for decision directing the private respondent to
certiorari, finding that the said petition was pay the petitioner a bigger sum than what has
only filed to circumvent the non-appealable been awarded.
nature of small claims cases as provided
under Section 23 The SC held that that petitioner correctly
availed of the remedy of certiorari to assail the
Issue: propriety of the MTCC Decision in the subject
Whether the RTC erred in dismissing small claims case through the RTC. The court
petitioner’s recourse under Rule 65 of the remanded the case to the RTC to review the
Rules of Court assailing the propriety of the MTCC decision.
MTCC Decision in the subject small claims
case? GMCC UNITED DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION vs. GOTESCO REGENCY
Ruling: TWIN TOWERS CONDOMINIUM
CORPORATION (G.R. No. 206137 / April 8, the condominium corporation contends that it
2015) is to the best interest of all stakeholders that
said issues be squarely addressed by this
Doctrine: Court.
While Section 6 of the Rules of Procedure for
Small Claims Cases allows joinder of claims Issue:
(provided that the total amount claimed, Whether or not the failure to assert GMCC’s
exclusive of interest and costs, does not delinquency in paying association dues in the
exceed P100,000.00), the condominium Statement of Claim renders said matter as
corporation only alleged the failure of GMCC inconsequential.
to pay its parking slot dues over Parking Slot
No. 153 in its Statement of Claim. Be it due to Ruling:
plain inadvertence, the fact that GMCC's YES. For failure of GMCC to appear on the
delinquency in paying association dues for scheduled hearing, the controversy was
one of its units was not asserted in the properly passed upon and decided by the
Statement of Claim effectively renders said court based on the facts as alleged in the
matter as inconsequential in this case. Statement of Claim on the same day. This is
pursuant to Section 18 of the Rules of
Facts: Procedure for Small Claims Cases, in relation
At the crux of this controversy is Gotesco to Section 12 thereof. Section 18 reads:
Regency’s Parking Slot No. 153 owned by
GMCC. For GMCC’s failure to pay “parking SEC. 18. Non-appearance of Parties. —
slot dues” in the total amount of P38,783.11, Failure of the plaintiff to appear shall be cause
the Gotesco Regency filed a small claims for the dismissal of the claim without prejudice.
action against GMCC before the MeTC of The defendant who appears shall be entitled
Manila in 2012. The said court conducted a to judgment on a permissive counterclaim.
hearing, however, GMCC failed to appear Failure of the defendant to appear shall have
despite due notice. Finding merit in Gotesco’s the same effect as failure to file a Response
claim, and pursuant to Sections 12 and 18 of under Section 12 of this Rule. This shall not
the Rules of Procedure for Small Claims apply where one of two or more defendants
Cases, the MeTC found GMCC liable to pay who are sued under a common cause of action
Gotesco for P38,783.11 with interest. GMCC and have pleaded a common defense appears
assailed that the MeTC decision before the at the hearing. Failure of both parties to
RTC Manila, which rendered its decision appear shall cause the dismissal with
denying GMCC’s petition for its failure to prove prejudice of both the claim and counterclaim.
that MeTC acted with grave abuse of
discretion. Undaunted, GMCC appealed This is not to undermine the condominium
before the CA via petition for review under corporation's claim that GMCC has also been
Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. The CA issued delinquent in paying association dues for one
a resolution dismissing GMCC’s petition for of its units. But then, it appears that upon the
being a wrong remedy. In addition, the institution of the present action, such issue
condominium corporation also alleges that was yet a future event. While Section 6 of the
GMCC has also been delinquent in paying Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases
association dues for one of its units. Alleging allows joinder of claims (provided that the total
that the instant petition raises questions on its amount claimed, exclusive of interest and
authority to assess dues and other matters costs, does not exceed P100,000.00), the
relating to manners of collection and demand, condominium corporation only alleged the
failure of GMCC to pay its parking slot dues Judge Gumarang, in his comment on the
over Parking Slot No. 153 in its Statement of complaint, explained that as Assisting Judge
Claim. Be it due to plain inadvertence, the fact of MTC of Bacoor, Cavite, he tried small claims
that GMCC's delinquency in paying cases on Thursdays. He admitted that he
association dues for one of its units was not failed to decide the case within five (5) working
asserted in the Statement of Claim effectively days from receipt of the order, as mandated by
renders said matter as inconsequential in this the Rule. However, he pointed out that the
case. Rule needed clarification since, as in his case,
the five (5) working days should be construed
ORBE vs. HON. GUMARANG (A.M. No. to refer to five (5) calendared trial dates falling
MTJ-11-1792, September 26, 2011) on Thursdays only, considering that he allotted
only one day, that is Thursday, to hear and try
Doctrine: small claims cases.
The theory behind the small claims system is
that ordinary litigation fails to bring practical The Office of the Court Administrator found
justice to the parties when the disputed claim Judge Gumarang guilty of Gross Ignorance of
is small, because the time and expense the Law and recommended that he be fined in
required by the ordinary litigation process is so the amount of P5,000.00 for violating the Rule
disproportionate to the amount involved that it of Procedure for Small Claims Cases.
discourages a just resolution of the dispute.
The small claims process is designed to Issue:
function quickly and informally. There are no Whether or not Judge Gumarang is guilty of
lawyers, no formal pleadings and no strict violation of the Rule of Procedure for Small
legal rules of evidence. Claims.

Facts: Ruling:
The case involve an administrative complaint YES, Judge Gumarang is guilty of violation of
filed by complainant Orbe against Judge the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims.
Manolito Y. Gumarang for violation of the Rule
of Procedure for Small Claims Cases and the Sec. 22 of the Rule of Procedure for Small
Code of Judicial Conduct. Claims clearly provided for the period within
which judgment should be rendered, to wit:
It was alleged that Orbe was the plaintiff in a
small claims case filed before the MTC of Sec. 22. Failure of Settlement - If efforts at
Imus, Cavite. Since the parties in the said case settlement at settlement fail, the hearing shall
filed to reach an amicable settlement, the case proceed proceed in an informal and
was assigned to Judge Gumarang. expeditious manner and be terminated within
one (1) day. Either party may move in writing
Judge Gumarang however repeatedly to have another judge hear and decide the
postponed the schedules of hearing. case. The reassignment of the case shall be
Complainant thus argued that Judge done in accordance with existing issuances.
Gumarang violated the Rules of Procedure for
Small Claim Cases for failure to decide the civil The referral by the original judge to the
case within five days from receipt of the order Executive Judge shall be made within the
of reassignment. same day the motion is filed and granted, and
by the Executive Judge to the designated
judge within the same day of the referral. The
new judge shall hear and decide the case The need for prompt resolution of small claims
within five (5) days from the receipt of the order cases is further emphasized by Section 19 of
of reassignment. the Rule, which provides that:

In this case, it is undisputed that it took more Sec. 19, SEC. 19. Postponement When
than 2 months for Judge Gumarang to render Allowed. — A request for postponement of a
a decision on the subject case as he himself hearing may be granted only upon proof of the
admitted the series of postponements which physical inability of the party to appear before
occurred during the pendency of the case. the court on the scheduled date and time. A
party may avail of only one (1) postponement.
His argument that he hears small claims cases
only on Thursday is not accepted by the Court. In the instant case, it is noteworthy to mention
Judge Gumarang must have missed the very that the postponements were not attributed to
purpose and essence of the creation of the any of the parties to the case. The numerous
Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases. postponements, which in some instances
The Court emphasized that the creation of the were upon respondent's initiative, were
Rule of Procedure for Small Claims is aimed uncalled for and unjustified, considering that it
to enhance access to justice, especially by was already established that all efforts for
those who cannot afford the high costs of amicable settlement were futile. Thus, the
litigation even in cases of relatively small postponements were clear violation of the
value. The theory behind the small claims Rule and defeat the very essence of the Rule.
system is that ordinary litigation fails to bring
practical justice to the parties when the WHEREFORE, the Court finds Judge Manolito
disputed claim is small, because the time and Y. Gumarang, Municipal Trial Court, Imus,
expense required by the ordinary litigation Cavite, GUILTY of Undue Delay in Rendering
process is so disproportionate to the amount a Decision and Violation of the Rule of
involved that it discourages a just resolution of Procedure for Small Claims Cases, and is
the dispute. The small claims process is hereby ORDERED to pay a fine of Five
designed to function quickly and informally. Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) and WARNED
There are no lawyers, no formal pleadings and that a repetition of the same or similar act shall
no strict legal rules of evidence. be dealt with more severely.

Thus, the intent of the law in providing the SPOUSES ROMEO PAJARES AND IDA T.
period to hear and decide cases falling under PAJARES, Petitioners, v. REMARKABLE
the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases, LAUNDRY AND DRY CLEANING,
which is within five (5) days from the receipt of REPRESENTED BY ARCHEMEDES G.
the order of assignment, is very clear. The SOLIS, Respondent. (G.R. No. 212690
exigency of prompt rendition of judgment in (Formerly UDK-15080), February 20, 2017)
small claims cases is a matter of public policy.
There is no room for further interpretation; it Doctrine:
does not require respondent's exercise of Paragraph 8, Section 19 of BP 129, as
discretion. He is duty-bound to adhere to the amended by Republic Act No. 7691, provides
rules and decide small claims cases without that where the amount of the demand exceeds
undue delay. P100,000.00, exclusive of interest, damages
of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation
expenses, and costs, exclusive jurisdiction is
lodged with the RTC. Otherwise, jurisdiction
belongs to the Municipal Trial Court. In
Administrative Circular No. 09-94, this Court Ruling:
declared that "where the claim for damages is The Court ruled that in determining whether an
the main cause of action, or one of the causes action is one the subject matter of which is not
of action, the amount of such claim shall be capable of pecuniary estimation this Court has
considered in determining the jurisdiction of adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the
the court." In other words, where the complaint nature of the principal action or remedy
primarily seeks to recover damages, all claims sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of a
for damages should be considered in sum of money, the claim is considered
determining which court has jurisdiction over capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether
the subject matter of the case regardless of jurisdiction is in the municipal trial courts or in
whether they arose from a single cause of the courts of first instance would depend on
action or several causes of action. the amount of the claim. However, where the
basic issue is something other than the right to
Facts: recover a sum of money, where the money
On September 3, 2012, Remarkable Laundry claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence
and Dry Cleaning (respondent) filed a of, the principal relief sought, this Court has
Complaint denominated as "Breach of considered such actions as cases where the
Contract and Damages"6 against spouses subject of the litigation may not be estimated
Romeo and Ida Pajares (petitioners) before in terms of money, and are cognizable
the RTC of Cebu City. Respondent alleged exclusively by courts of first instance (now
that it entered into a Remarkable Dealer Outlet Regional Trial Courts).
Contract with petitioners whereby the latter, Paragraph 8, Section 19 of BP 129, as
acting as a dealer outlet, shall accept and amended by Republic Act No. 7691,provides
receive items or materials for laundry which that where the amount of the demand exceeds
are then picked up and processed by the P100,000.00, exclusive of interest, damages
former in its main plant or laundry outlet; that of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation
petitioners violated Article IV (Standard expenses, and costs, exclusive jurisdiction is
Required Quota & Penalties) of said contract, lodged with the RTC. Otherwise, jurisdiction
which required them to produce at least 200 belongs to the Municipal Trial Court.
kilos of laundry items each week, when, on
April 30, 2012, they ceased dealer outlet The above jurisdictional amount had been
operations on account of lack of personnel; increased to P200,000.00 on March 20, 1999
that respondent made written demands upon and further raised to P300,000.00 on February
petitioners for the payment of penalties 22, 2004 pursuant to Section 5 of RA 7691.
imposed and provided for in the contract, but
the latter failed to pay; and, that petitioners' Then in Administrative Circular No. 09-94 this
violation constitutes breach of contract. Court declared that "where the claim for
damages is the main cause of action, or one
RTC : Dismissed the case for lack of of the causes of action, the amount of such
jurisdiction claim shall be considered in determining the
CA: Remanded the Case to the RTC jurisdiction of the court." In other words, where
the complaint primarily seeks to recover
Issue: damages, all claims for damages should be
W/N the Court has jurisdiction over the claim considered in determining which court has
of P280,000.00 damages from the breach of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case
contract
regardless of whether they arose from a single
cause of action or several causes of action.
Since the total amount of the damages
claimed by the respondent in its Complaint
filed with the RTC on September 3, 2012
amounted only to P280,000.00, said court was
correct in refusing to take cognizance of the
case.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED and

the December 11, 2013 Decision and March
19, 2014 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CEB SP No. 07711 are REVERSED
and SET ASIDE. The February 19, 2013 Order
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 17, Cebu
City dismissing Civil Case No. CEB-39025 for
lack of jurisdiction is REINSTATED.