FACTS:

The petitioner, Flordeliza Mendoza, filed a petition for review to reverse the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. In the incident that gave rise to the case, on July 14, 1997, Lomer Macasasa, while driving a Tamaraw FX, hit Sonny Soriano who was crossing Commonwealth Avenue in Quezon City. Macasasa fled the scene after checking it out, leaving Soriano. Soriano was brought to the hospital by a school bus but later died. Criminal charges were recommended against Macasasa. Soriano's wife and daughter filed a complaint for damages against Macasasa and Mendoza, who is the registered owner of the vehicle. They claimed various amounts for damages including moral damages, lost income, funeral expenses, burial lot, interment expenses, hospitalization expenses, and attorney's fees. The trial court dismissed the complaint against both Macasasa and Mendoza, finding Soriano negligent and Mendoza not negligent in the supervision of Macasasa. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision and held Mendoza liable for damages, though reduced by 20% due to Soriano's contributory negligence. Mendoza's motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to the petition for review before the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

1. Did the Regional Trial Court have jurisdiction to try the case?

2. Was there sufficient legal basis to award damages?

RULING:

1. The Regional Trial Court had jurisdiction to try the case. Petitioner argues that the amount claimed by respondents is within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court. However, the Court held that to determine the jurisdictional amount, the sum of all the amounts claimed must be considered. In this case, the total amount claimed by respondents is P358,986, which clearly exceeds the jurisdictional amount of the Metropolitan Trial Court.

2. There was a sufficient legal basis to award damages. The Court of Appeals found Macasasa negligent for speeding, which led to the accident. It also held that petitioner, as the employer, had the presumption of negligence in the selection and supervision of employees. Since petitioner failed to present evidence to the contrary, the Court upheld this presumption. Therefore, the appellate court's award of damages to the respondents was justified.

PRINCIPLES:

• The jurisdiction of the court is determined by the total amount claimed by the parties.

• The presumption of negligence of the employer in the selection and supervision of employees applies in cases where the employer fails to present evidence to the contrary.