MANGALIAG vs. CATUBIG G.R. No. 143951 October 25, 2005 474 SCRA 153 F ct!"Private resp.

Apolinario Serquina, Jr. filed before the RTC a complaint for damages against petitioners Norma angaliag and Narciso Solano for failure to e!ercise e!traordinar" diligence in the selection of her #truc$ driver% resulting to serious in&uries and permanent deformities of respondent and his co'passengers therein. Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lac$ of &urisdiction over the sub&ect matter of the claim, alleging that the unicipal Trial Court has &urisdiction over the case since the principal amount pra"ed for, in the amount of P(),*+,.--, falls .ithin its &urisdiction. I!!#e" /n an action for recover" of damages, does the amount of actual damages pra"ed for in the complaint provide the sole test for determining the court0s &urisdiction, or is the total amount of all the damages claimed, regardless of $ind and nature, such as moral, e!emplar", nominal damages, and attorne"0s fees, etc., to be computed collectivel" .ith the actual damages to determine .hat court 1 .hether the TC or the RTC 1 has &urisdiction over the action2 $e%&" The &udicial hierarch" of courts is not an iron'clad rule. /t generall" applies to cases involving .arring factual allegations. 3or this reason, litigants are required to repair to the trial courts at the first instance to determine the truth or falsit" of these contending allegations on the basis of the evidence of the parties. Cases .hich depend on disputed facts for decision cannot be brought immediatel" before appellate courts as the" are not triers of facts. Therefore, a strict application of the rule of hierarch" of courts is not necessar" .hen the cases brought before the appellate courts do not involve factual but legal questions. The .ell'entrenched principle is that the &urisdiction of the court over the sub&ect matter of the action is determined b" the material allegations of the complaint and the la., irrespective of .hether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover all or some of the claims or reliefs sought therein. /n the present case, the allegations in the complaint plainl" sho. that private respondent see$s to recover not onl" his medical e!penses, lost income but also damages for ph"sical suffering and mental anguish due to permanent facial deformit" from in&uries sustained in the vehicular accident. 4ie.ed as an action for quasi'delict, the present case falls squarel" .ithin the purvie. of Article ,,)+ #,%, .hich provides for the pa"ment of moral damages in cases of quasi'delict causing ph"sical in&uries. Private respondent0s claim for moral damages of P5--,---.-- cannot be considered as merel" incidental to or a consequence of the claim for actual damages. /t is a separate and distinct cause of action or an independent actionable tort. /t springs from the right of a person to the ph"sical integrit" of his or her bod", and if that integrit" is violated, damages are due and assessable 6ence, the demand for moral damages must be considered as a separate cause of action, independent of the claim for actual damages and must be included in determining the &urisdictional amount, in clear consonance .ith paragraph , of Administrative Circular No. -+'+7.