MIJARESv.

RANADA
G.R.No.139325
April12,2005
Sec1,ArticleIII
FACTS:
DuringtheruleofPresidentMarcos,thousandsofFilipinosbecamevictimsofhuman
rights violations such as torture, summary execution and illegal detainment. The petitioners
Mijareset.al,werevictimsofsuchabuseandinvokingtheAlienTortsAct,theyfiledaclasssuit
intheUSDistrictCourtinHawaiitoclaimdamagesfromtheMarcosestate.Theclasssuit
involved over 10,000 victims who endured human rights violations from 19721987. On
February3,1995,theUSDistrictCourtrenderedaFinalJudgmentawardingthepetitionersa
totalof$1,964,005,859.90againsttheMarcosEstate.ThisjudgmentwasaffirmedbytheUS
CourtofAppeals.
OnMay20,1997,thepetitionersfiledacasewiththeMakatiRTCfortheenforcementof
theFinalJudgment.TheypaidafillingfeeofP410.00,basedonRule141,7(b)wherethevalue
ofthesubjectmatterisincapableofpecuniaryestimation.Thereafter,theMarcosEstatefileda
Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the petitioners filled the incorrect filing fee which
allegedlyshouldhavebeenbasedontheamountofthemoneyclaimsoughttobeenforced.
RespondentJudgeSantiagoRanadaoftheMakatiRTCissuedtheorderofdismissalandopined
that the subject matter of the complaint was indeed capable of pecuniary estimation as it
involvedajudgmentrenderedbyaforeigncourtorderingthepaymentofadefinitesumof
money.AccordingtotheJudge,theestimatedproperamountoffilingfeeswasapproximately
P472million,whichthepetitionerswerenotabletopay.Thepetitionerscontendthattheirright
tofreeaccesstothecourtsasprovidedforinSec11,Article3oftheConstitutionisoverstepped
bytheexcessivelyhighfilingfee.
ISSUES:
Whetherornotthepetitionerspaidthecorrectfilingfee.
HELD:
YES,thefilingfeeswereCORRECTLYpaid.
Thepetitionerspaidthecorrectamountfortheircasefallsundertheclassificationof
otheractionsnotinvolvingproperty.Petitioners'complaintmayhavebeenlodgedagainstan
estate,butitisclearlybasedonajudgment,theFinalJudgmentoftheUSDistrictCourt.It
shouldbedistinguishedfromcasescenteredonmoneyclaims.Whileitistruethatthevalueof
theforeignjudgmentcanbeascertained,thecaseisnotforameremoneyclaimbutforthe
enforcementofaforeignjudgment.
WithregardtotheenforcementofforeignjudgmentsinthePhilippines,thereisageneral
rightrecognizedwithinourbodyoflaws,andaffirmedbytheConstitution,toseekrecognition
andenforcementofforeignjudgments,aswellasarighttodefendagainstsuchenforcementon
thegroundsofwantofjurisdiction,wantofnoticetotheparty,collusion,fraud,orclearmistake
oflaworfact.Therearenoobligatoryrulesderivedfromtreatiesorconventionsthatrequire

Philippinestorecognizeforeignjudgmentsbutitformspartofthegenerallyacceptedprinciples
ofinternationallaw.Therulesofcomity,utilityandconvenienceofnationsininternationallaw
haveestablishedausageamongcivilizedstatesbywhichfinaljudgmentsofforeigncourtsof
competent jurisdiction are reciprocally respected and rendered efficacious under certain
conditions.
ThecomplainttoenforcetheUSDistrictCourtjudgmentisonecapableofpecuniary
estimation.Butatthesametime,itisalsoanaction
basedonafinalforeignjudgmentagainstanestate,
Preparedby:MarianneCarmelAgunoy
thusplacingitbeyondthereachofSection7(a)of
Rule 141. It is covered by Section 7(b)(3), since it involves, "other actions not involving
property."Notably,theamountpaidasdocketfeesbythepetitionersonthepremisethatitwas
anactionincapableofpecuniaryestimationcorrespondstothesameamountrequiredfor"other
actionsnotinvolvingproperty."Thepetitionersthuspaidthecorrectamountoffilingfees,andit
was a grave abuse of discretion for respondent judge to have applied instead a clearly
inapplicableruleanddismissedthecomplaint.
ThecourtalsoruledthattheinvocationofSection11ofArticle3ismisplacedinthecase
atbar.Ithasbeenwellsettledthatthe constitutionalityofanactwillnotberesolvedbythe
courts ifthecontroversycanbesettledonothergroundsorunlesstheresolutionthereofis
indispensableforthedeterminationofthecase.
PetitionGRANTED.Theassailedordersoftherespondentjudgearenullifiedandsetaside.

Preparedby:MarianneCarmelAgunoy