Moreno v. Macadeg
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents, laborers in the construction of the National Orthopedic Hospital, filed a complaint against Juan R. Sumerariz (contractor), Associated Insurance Company, Inc. (surety), and herein petitioners (public works officials). The laborers claimed unpaid wages totaling P21,502.36. A partial payment of P5,154.76 was released from the 10% retention fund, leaving a balance of P16,382.36. The second cause of action was against the surety company, and the third was against the public works officials for allegedly opposing payment from the retention fund and negligently approving a surety bond. Juan R. Sumerariz filed a cross-claim against the public works officials, alleging they harassed him, arbitrarily rescinded the contract, and caused him damages. Procedural History: Petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint and cross-claim on the grounds that they did not state a cause of action and that the venue was improper. The motion to dismiss was denied by the respondent judge, as was the motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for a writ of prohibition to enjoin the respondent judge from proceeding with the case, arguing that the complaint and cross-claim did not state a cause of action due to a contract stipulation regarding the settlement of claims after completion, and that the venue was improper.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion or acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in denying the motion to dismiss the complaint and cross-claim. Whether the venue of the action was properly laid.
Ruling
The petition for a writ of prohibition is denied. The respondent court did not commit a grave abuse of discretion or act in excess of jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
On the denial of the motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action: The Court found it doubtful whether the stipulation in the contract regarding the final liquidation between the Government and the contractor after completion of the work applied to claims of laborers for unpaid wages directed against the retention fund. This stipulation referred to the final settlement between the Government and the contractor, not necessarily prohibiting the payment of laborers' claims in the meantime, especially when such claims had already been adjudicated. Furthermore, the grounds relied upon by the petitioners were not indubitable, and the order denying the motion to dismiss was merely interlocutory. The Court reiterated that an interlocutory order, unless it constitutes a grave abuse of discretion or is issued without or in excess of jurisdiction, should be corrected by appeal after trial on the merits, not by prohibition. The same observation applied to the cross-claim for damages, as the determination of liability did not need to await the completion of the construction project. On the venue of the action: The Court clarified that the action of the laborers against the petitioners did not fall under Section 1 of Act No. 3688, which pertains to suits on the contractor's bond. The laborers sought to recover unpaid wages in their own name, not in the name of the Government, and their action against the petitioning officials was not upon the bond but for the release of funds from the retention fund. The Court held that the venue was properly laid in Manila, where the plaintiff laborers resided, pursuant to Section 1 of Republic Act No. 1171, which allows civil actions on claims of employees and laborers to be commenced and tried in the court of competent jurisdiction where the defendant or any of the defendants resides or may be found, or where the plaintiff or any of the plaintiff resides, at the election of the plaintiff. The contention that the action was in effect against the Government was also rejected, as the action merely sought to compel the officials to release funds already set aside and retained for the purpose.
Main Doctrine
A petition for prohibition to enjoin a lower court from proceeding with a case is not the proper remedy to correct an interlocutory order denying a motion to dismiss, unless such denial constitutes a grave abuse of discretion or is issued without or in excess of jurisdiction. The venue for civil actions on claims of employees and laborers may be commenced and tried in the court of competent jurisdiction where the defendant or any of the defendants resides or may be found, or where the plaintiff or any of the plaintiff resides, at the election of the plaintiff.