4/7/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly in his requirement, the complaint filed by plaintiff with the trial court, it must be said, fails to show its legal capacity to sue. [44] x x x In the case at bar, [SCPL] alleged in its complaint that "it is a foreign corporation which operates its business at the Star City Casino in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; that it is not doing business in the Philippines; and that it is suing upon a singular and isolated transaction". It also appointed Jimeno, Jalandoni and Cope Law Offices as its attorney-in-fact. Following the pronouncement mentioned above and having pleaded these averments in the complaint sufficiently clothed [SCPL] the necessary legal capacity to sue before Philippine courts.[45] The appointment of JJC Law as attorney-in-fact of SCPL is irrelevant on the latter's capacity to sue in the Philippines under an isolated transaction. Further, the following observation of the RTC is apropos: Besides, it is observed that defendant Llorente in [his] answer pleaded [an] affirmative relief for damages from plaintiff [SCPL] by way of a counterclaim. This is contrary to his position that plaintiff has no capacity to sue in the Philippines because such contention likewise entails that plaintiff may be sued in the Philippines as defendant Llorente also prayed for affirmative relief against the plaintiff. He is deemed to have admitted the capacity of plaintiff to be subject of our judicial process. It would be unfair to rule that plaintiff may be sued in the Philippines without at the same time allowing it to sue on an isolated transaction here.[46] On the issue of jurisdiction, the argument of Llorente that Australian courts have jurisdiction over the case because all the material acts and transactions between him and SCPL transpired in Australia, except for the mere issuance of the two bank drafts by EPCIB in the Philippines also fails. It must be remembered that the complaint filed by SCPL against Llorente and EPCIB is for collection of sum of money, which is a civil case. Under BP 129, Section 19, RTCs have exclusive jurisdiction "[i]n all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs or the value of property in controversy exceeds Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) or, in such other cases in Metro Manila, where the demand, exclusive of the abovementioned items exceeds Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00)."[47] Since the amount demanded by SCPL against Llorente and EPCIB in solidary capacity, which is "USD $300,000.00 plus legal interest from date of first demand on December 20, 2000 until full payment,"[48] is above P400,000.00, the RTC has jurisdiction over SCPL's complaint. Also, from the point of view of territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases[49] involving checks, any of the places where the check is drawn, issued, delivered, or dishonored has jurisdiction.[50] As the CA emphasized, "[w]hile it is true that the stopped payment occurred in Australia per advice of Union Bank of California to the Bank of New York, x https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65911 8/22