JURISDICTION OF THE

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS

Actually, when you know the jurisdiction of the RTC, automatically you know
the jurisdiction of the MTC. In criminal cases for example, RTC has jurisdiction
when the penalty imposable is imprisonment of more than 6 years until death
penalty. So, necessarily, if it is 6 years or below, the MTC has jurisdiction. Same
with civil cases.

Summary of jurisdiction of MTC:

A.) As to original jurisdiction – Section 33
B.) As to delegated jurisdiction – Section 34
C.) As to special jurisdiction – Section 35

A.) EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE MTC

Sec. 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial

Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts in civil cases. - Metropolitan
Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:

1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil

actions and probate proceedings, testate and
intestate, including the grant of provisional
remedies in proper cases, where the value of the
personal property, estate, or amount of the demand
does not exceed One hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000.00) or, in Metro Manila where such
personal property, estate, or amount of the demand
does not exceed two hundred thousand pesos
(P200,000.00), exclusive of interest, damages of
whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation
expenses, and costs, the amount of which must be
specifically alleged: Provided, That interest,
damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees,
litigation expenses, and costs shall be included in
the determination of the filing fees: Provided
further, That where there are several claims or
causes of actions between the same or different
parties, embodied in the same complaint, the amount
of the demand shall be the totality of the claims
in all the causes of action, irrespective of
whether the causes of action arose out of the same
or different transactions.

JBD 41
 RA 7691, Sec. 5. After five (5) years from the
effectivity of this Act, the jurisdictional amounts
mentioned in Sec. 19(3), (4), and (8); and Sec. 33(1) of
Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended by this Act, shall be
adjusted to Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00). Five
(5) years thereafter, such jurisdictional amounts shall be
adjusted further to Three hundred thousand pesos
(P300,000.00): Provided, however, That in the case of Metro
Manila, the abovementioned jurisdictional amounts shall be
adjusted after five (5) years from the effectivity of this
Act to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000,00).

Well if you know the jurisdiction of the RTC on money claims and probate
cases, automatically you will also know that of the MTC.

Under the law, it is only the principal claim or the main claim which is
computed. Interest, damages of whatever kind, attorneys fees, litigation
expenses and cost are not included in determining the jurisdiction when they are
merely incidental to or a consequence of the main cause of action. However, in
cases where the claim for damages is the main cause of action, or one of the
causes of action, the amount of such claim shall be considered in determining the
jurisdiction of the court.

Jurisdiction and Payment of Docket Fees

Even if the amount of damages and attorney’s fees do not determine

jurisdiction, they must still be specifically alleged in the complaint for the
purpose of payment of docket fees. Thus, the higher the amount one is claiming
the higher the filing fee.

Why pay the docket fee?

Because it is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory

pleading, but the payment of the prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court
with jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action. (Sun Insurance
Office Ltd. [SIOLI] v. Asuncion 170 SCRA 274, 285 [1989])

Let us review what we learned in criminal procedure.

SECTION 1.

Xxxxxx

When the offended party seeks to enforce civil liability against the
accused by way of moral, nominal, temperate, or exemplary damages
JBD 42
 without specifying the amount thereof in the complaint or information, the
filing fees therefore shall constitute a first lien on the judgment awarding
such damages.
Where the amount of damages, other than actual, is specified in the
complaint or information, the corresponding filing fees shall be paid by the
offended party upon the filing thereof in court.
Except as otherwise provided in these Rules, no filing fees shall be
required for actual damages.

(b) The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be
deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No reservation to file such
civil action separately shall be allowed.
Upon filing of the aforesaid joint criminal and civil actions, the offended
party shall pay in full the filing fees based on the amount of the check
involved, which shall be considered as the actual damages claimed. Where
the complaint or information also seeks to recover liquidated, moral,
nominal, temperate or exemplary damages, the offended party shall pay
additional filing fees based on the amounts alleged therein. If the amounts
are not so alleged but any of these damages are subsequently awarded by the
court, the filing fees based on the amount awarded shall constitute a first lien
on the judgment.

FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 126334. November 23, 2001.]
EMILIO EMNACE, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ESTATE OF VICENTE
TABANAO, SHERWIN TABANAO, VICENTE WILLIAM TABANAO, JANETTE
TABANAO DEPOSOY, VICENTA MAY TABANAO VARELA, ROSELA
TABANAO and VINCENT TABANAO, respondents.

Payment of Filing fees In Case Civil Aspect Is Deemed Impliedly Instituted In the
Criminal Action:

In any event, the Court now makes that intent plainer, and in the interest of clarity and
certainty, categorically declares for guidance of all concerned that when the civil action is
deemed impliedly instituted with the criminal in accordance with Section 1, Rule 111 of
the Rules of Court – because the offended party has not waived the civil action, or
reserved the right to institute it separately, or instituted the civil action prior to the
criminal action – the rule is as follows: (1) when the amount of the damages, other than
actual, is alleged in the complaint or information filed in court, then the corresponding
filing fees shall be paid by the offended party upon filing thereof in court for trial; (2) in
any other case, however, -- i.e. when the amount of damages is not so alleged in the
complaint or information filed in court the corresponding filing fees need not be paid and
shall simply constitute a first lien on the judgment, except in an award for actual
damages. (General vs. Hon. Claravall, et al., 195 SCRA 623)

JBD 43
 Q: Suppose there was no mention of any claim for moral or exemplary damages, by
not stating the amount claimed, can he still prove them during the trial?
YES.
But he did not pay docket fee?
A: Never mind, once it is awarded, there is now a lien in the judgment for the payment
of the docket fee.

For Independent Civil Actions

In the case of Sun Insurance if the damages was not mentioned in the complaint in the
civil case they are deemed waived. If it is mentioned, and the amount is fixed you must
pay the docket fee at the start of the case though if it is not complete, you are given the
chance to complete the payment or amend the complaint within reasonable time.

In criminal cases, even if there is no mention of damages in the information, you can still
prove and claim them as long as there is no waiver or reservation.

When docket fee is due for actual damage:

So in criminal cases, if the claim for moral or exemplary damages is mentioned in the
information, you must pay the docket fee upon filing of the information. But whether
alleged in the information or not, you can claim for actual damages and there is no docket
fee for actual damages except in cases under BP 22. That is the exception which is now
embodied in Section 1 paragraph [b] which was taken from SC circular 57-97 – there is
no payment of docket fee for actual damages except in criminal cases for violation of BP
22 because paragraph [b] says:

Upon filing of the aforesaid joint criminal and civil actions, the offended
party shall pay in full the filing fees based on the amount of the check
involved, which shall be considered as the actual damages claimed.

OTHER CASES ON FILING FEE IN CIVIL CASES:

In the case of
MANCHESTER DEVELOPMENT CORP. vs. CA
149 SCRA 562

FACTS: The plaintiff files a complaint and paid the docket fee but he
did not specify the amount of the damages he was claiming. He
contended that he is claiming for moral damages in such amount as the
court will grant. Respondent contended, on the other hand, that it
cannot be done, there is a necessity to state the exact amount of the
damages in order to determine the correct amount of the docket fee. So
the plaintiff amended the complaint and paid the balance of the docket
fees.

JBD 44
 ISSUE: Whether or not the subsequent amendment cures the defect?

HELD: No, the defect is incurable. Thus, the action has to be

dismissed. The court acquires no jurisdiction over the case. The remedy
is to re-file the complaint and pay again the complete amount of the
docket fee. The prior payment made is forfeited in as much as the defect
in the first complaint is incurable.

So based on the MANCHESTER ruling, you cannot cure the defect by merely
amending the complaint.

However, the SC, after reflecting on what it said in the case of MANCHESTER,
realized the harshness of their decision. This Manchester ruling was relaxed in
the subsequent case of SUN INSURANCE OFFICE which is now the governing
law:

SUN INSURANCE OFFICE LTD. vs. COURT OF APPEALS

170 SCRA 274 [1989]

HELD: Thus, the Court rules as follows:

1. It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory

pleading, but the payment of the prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial
court with jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action.
Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by
payment of the docket fee, the court may allow payment of the fee
within a reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable
prescriptive or reglementary period.
2. The same rule applies to permissive counterclaims, third party
claims and similar pleadings, which shall not be considered filed until
and unless the filing fee prescribed therefore is paid. The court may also
allow payment of said fee within a reasonable time but also in no case
beyond its applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.
3. Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over a claim by the
filing of the appropriate pleading and payment of the prescribed filing
fee but, subsequently, the judgment awards a claim not specified in the
pleading, or if specified the same has been left for determination by the
court, the additional filing fee therefor shall constitute a lien on the
judgment. It shall be the responsibility of the Clerk of Court or his duly
authorized deputy to enforce said lien and assess and collect the
additional fee.

Payment of docket fee and counterclaims

Second rule:

JBD 45
 “The same rule applies to permissive counterclaims…”

Re Compulsory Counterclaim

Rule 141 on Legal Fees was revised effective August 26, 2004 by AM No. 04-2-
04-SC and the revision includes the payment of docket fees not only for
permissive counterclaim but also for compulsory counterclaims. But the SC
suspended the enforcement of the new rates of legal fees under Rule 141 effective
September 21, 2004, with respect to compulsory counterclaims, among others. It
did not suspend the imposition of legal fees.

However, in Korea Technologies Co. Ltd. Vs. Lerma, 542 SCRA 1, January 7,
2008, the Court said:

“On July 17, 1998, at the time PGSMC filed its Answer incorporating its
counterclaims against KOGIES, it was not liable to pay filing fees for said
counterclaim being compulsory in nature. We stress, however, that effective
August 16, 2004, under Sec. 7 of Rule 141, as amended by AM No. 04-2-04-SC,
docket fees are now required to be paid in compulsory counterclaim or cross
claims.”

And the third rule laid down in Sun Insurance:

If the judgment awards a claim not specified in the pleadings, the filing fee
therefor shall be a lien in the judgment. It shall be the responsibility of the clerk
of Court or his duly-authorized deputy to enforce the lien, assess and collect the
additional fee.

Q: When can this possibly happen?

A: That can happen for example if I ask for damages. A man was hospitalized
because of physical injuries. While still in the hospital he filed an action for
damages and based the amount of damages on the current billing but alleged
that he continues to incur expenses as may be determined in the course of trial.
He paid the docket fee corresponding to the amount mentioned. After trial he
was able to establish expenses in the sum of P50,000.00.

Q: Can the court award the P 50,000?

A: Yes, because the additional expenses came only after the filing of the case.
The additional docket fee will constitute a lien on the award.

The Sun Insurance is a leading case on docket fee. It was followed with a third
case in December 1989 which further clarified the SUN INSURANCE ruling. This
is the case of

TACAY vs. RTC OF TAGUM, DAVAO DEL NORTE

JBD 46
 180 SCRA 433 [1989]

NOTE: When this case was filed, there was no SUN INSURANCE
decision yet. The guiding rule was still MANCHESTER. But while this
was pending the SUN INSURANCE was already out.

FACTS: The case was for recovery of land with damages. So it is not
purely for damages. So the amount of filing fee is assessed based on the
assessed value of the land because it is a real action, which the plaintiff
paid.
Defendant moved to dismiss based on MANCHESTER because the
plaintiff did not specify in the complaint how much damages he was
claiming. Now the RTC of Tagum denies the motion to dismiss. The
defendant goes to the SC citing MANCHESTER.
Of course the SC said that the Manchester ruling was no longer
controlling because of Sun Insurance.

But it enunciated another rule.

HELD:

“Where the action involves real property and a related claim for
damages as well, the legal fees shall be assessed on the basis of both (a)
the value of the property and (b) the total amount of related damages
sought. The court acquires jurisdiction over the action if the filing of the
initiatory pleading is accompanied by the payment of the requisite fees,
or, if the fees are not paid at the time of the filing of the pleading, as of
the time of full payment of the fees within such reasonable time as the
court may grant, unless, of course, prescription has set in the
meantime.”

In other words, the total docket fee must be based on the assessed
value of the land and for the damages. Thus: (1.) If the docket fee for the
recovery of land is paid but none for the damages, do not dismiss the
entire case! Just do not consider the claim for the damages. Or, (2.)
second option, citing SUN INSURANCE, give him reasonable time to
pay the balance.

While Sun Insurance relaxed the rule (as to how or when to complete
the payment), it did not however, effect any change in the rule that it is
not only the filing of the complaint but also the payment of the docket
fee that is necessary for the acquisition of the jurisdiction of the court
over the complaint filed. (Gensoli & Co. v. NLRC, 289 SCRA 407, 413
[1998]). If the filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by
payment of the docket fees, the court may allow payment of the fee
JBD 47
 within a reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable
prescriptive or reglementary period. (Colarina v. CA, 303 SCRA 647, 654
[1999])

Other interesting cases on docket fees.

No “file now, pay later” policy

FILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORP. vs. COURT OF APPEALS

171 SCRA 674 [1989]

FACTS: Adrian dela Paz sued all oil companies (Shell, Caltex, Mobil,
etc.) of the Philippines for infringement of patent with prayer for the
payment of reasonable compensation for damages. According to him,
these companies used in their operation a certain type of machine which
he claimed he invented. His patent was infringed. Thus, all these
companies are all liable to him for royalties. The estimated yearly
royalty due him is P236,572. Since the violation has been for many years
already, his claims reached millions. The trial court ordered him to pay
P945,636.90 as docket fee. He had no money so he questioned it. The
trial court ruled:
“We will allow you to file the case and the docket fee is deductible
from whatever judgment of damages shall be awarded by the court.”

HELD: There is no such thing as file now pay later. No justification

can be found to convert such payment to something akin to a contingent
fee which would depend on the result of the case.

“Filing fees are intended to take care of court expenses in the

handling of cases in terms of cost of supplies, use of equipments,
salaries and fringe benefits of personnel, etc., computed as to man hours
used in handling of each case. The payment of said fees therefore,
cannot be made dependent on the result of the action taken, without
entailing tremendous losses to the government and to the judiciary in
particular.”

What is the remedy of the plaintiff if he/she cannot really pay the filing fee?

Have himself declared by the court as a pauper litigant.

LACSON vs. REYES

182 SCRA 729

JBD 48
 FACTS: There was a case filed and then the lawyer filed a motion to
direct the plaintiff to pay him his attorney’s fees – a motion for payment
of attorney’s fees.

Is the lawyer required to pay a filing fee?

HELD: Yes. “It may be true that the claim for attorney's fees was but
an incident in the main case, still, it is not an escape valve from the
payment of docket fees because as in all actions, whether separate or as
an offshoot of a pending proceeding, the payment of docket fees is
mandatory. The docket fee should be paid before the court would
validly act on the motion.”

SUSON vs. COURT OF APPEALS

278 SCRA 284 [August 21, 1997)

FACTS: Mortz filed a case against Charles in Leyte. After filing, the
court dismissed the case because it should be filed in Cebu. Mortz wrote
a letter to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) asking that the
docket fee paid in Leyte be considered applicable to Cebu. OCA granted
his request.

Charles questioned it because of the rule that the payment of docket

fee is jurisdictional.

HELD: “The OCA has neither the power nor the authority to exempt
any party not otherwise exempt under the law or under the Rules of
Court in the payment of the prescribed docket fees. It may be
noteworthy to mention here that even in the Supreme Court, there are
numerous instances when a litigant has had to re-file a petition
previously dismissed by the Court due to a technicality (violation of a
pertinent Circular), and in these instances, the litigant is required to pay
the prescribed docket fee and not apply to the re-filed case the docket
fees paid in the earlier dismissed case.”
“In the case at bar, in the strict sense, Mortz’s complaint cannot be
deemed to have been ‘re-filed’ in Cebu City because it was not originally
filed in the same court but in the RTC Leyte. Thus, when Mortz’s
complaint was docketed by the clerk of court of the RTC Cebu City, it
became an entirely separate case from that dismissed by the RTC of
Leyte due to improper venue. As far as the case in Cebu is concerned,
while undoubtedly the order of dismissal is not an adjudication on the
merits of the case, the order, nevertheless, is a final order. This means
that when private respondent did not appeal therefrom, the order
became final and executory for all legal intents and purposes.”
JBD 49
 DE LEON vs. COURT OF APPEALS
287 SCRA 94 [March 6, 1998]

FACTS: The question for decision is whether in assessing the docket

fees to be paid for the filing of an action for annulment or rescission of a
contract of sale, the value of the real property, subject matter of the
contract, should be used as basis, or whether the action should be
considered as one which is not capable of pecuniary estimation and
therefore the fee charged should be a flat rate of P400.00 as provided in
Rule 141, Section 7(b)(1) of the Rules of Court.
Defendant argued that an action for annulment or rescission of a
contract of sale of real property is a real action and, therefore, the
amount of the docket fees to be paid by Plaintiff should be based either
on the assessed value of the property, subject matter of the action, or its
estimated value as alleged in the complaint.
Since Plaintiff alleged that the land, in which they claimed an interest
as heirs, had been sold for P4,378,000.00 to defendant, this amount
should be considered the estimated value of the land for the purpose of
determining the docket fees.
Plaintiff countered that an action for annulment or rescission of a
contract of sale of real property is incapable of pecuniary estimation
and, so, the docket fees should be the fixed amount of P400.00 in Rule
141, Section 7(b).

HELD: Plaintiff is correct. “In determining whether an action is one

the subject matter of which is not capable of pecuniary estimation, this
Court has adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the
principal action or remedy sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of a
sum of money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation,
and whether jurisdiction is in the municipal courts or in the courts of
first instance would depend on the amount of the claim. “
However, where the basic issue is something other than the right to
recover a sum of money, or where the money claim is purely incidental
to, or a consequence of, the principal relief sought, like in suits to have
the defendant perform his part of the contract (specific performance)
and in actions for support, or for annulment of a judgment or to
foreclose a mortgage, this Court has considered such actions as cases
where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of
money, and are cognizable exclusively by courts of first instance.”
“The rationale of the rule is plainly that the second class cases,
besides the determination of damages, demand an inquiry into other
factors which the law has deemed to be more within the competence of
courts of first instance, which were the lowest courts of record at the
JBD 50
 time that the first organic laws of the Judiciary were enacted allocating
jurisdiction.”
“Actions for specific performance of contracts have been expressly
pronounced to be exclusively cognizable by courts of first instance and
no cogent reason appears, and none is here advanced by the parties,
why an action for rescission (or resolution) should be differently treated,
a "rescission" being a counterpart, so to speak, of ‘specific
performance’.”
“In both cases, the court would certainly have to undertake an
investigation into facts that would justify one act or the other. No
award for damages may be had in an action for rescission without first
conducting an inquiry into matters which would justify the setting aside
of a contract. Issues of the same nature may be raised by a party against
whom an action for rescission has been brought, or by the plaintiff
himself.”
“It is, therefore, difficult to see why a prayer for damages in an action
for rescission should be taken as the basis for concluding such action as
one capable of pecuniary estimation — a prayer which must be included
in the main action if plaintiff is to be compensated for what he may have
suffered as a result of the breach committed by defendant, and not later
on precluded from recovering damages by the rule against splitting a
cause of action and discouraging multiplicity of suits.”
“Thus, although eventually the result may be the recovery of land, it
is the nature of the action as one for rescission of contract which is
controlling.”
“Since the action of Plaintiff against Defendant is solely for
annulment or rescission which is not susceptible of pecuniary
estimation, the action should not be confused and equated with the
‘value of the property’ subject of the transaction; that by the very nature
of the case, the allegations, and specific prayer in the complaint, sans
any prayer for recovery of money and/or value of the transaction, or for
actual or compensatory damages, the assessment and collection of the
legal fees should not be intertwined with the merits of the case and/or
what may be its end result.”

In Go vs. UCPB, GR No. 156182 Nov. 11, 2004 the court declared the following
as real actions:
1.) judicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage;
2.) actions to annul real estate mortgage;
for the reason that a real estate mortgage is a real right as well as a real property.
So an action to cancel or annul a real estate mortgage necessarily affects title to
the real property, hence a real action and jurisdiction is determined by the
assessed value of the property.

JBD 51
 FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 126334. November 23, 2001.]
EMILIO EMNACE, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ESTATE OF VICENTE
TABANAO, SHERWIN TABANAO, VICENTE WILLIAM TABANAO, JANETTE
TABANAO DEPOSOY, VICENTA MAY TABANAO VARELA, ROSELA
TABANAO and VINCENT TABANAO, respondents.
DECISION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J p:
I. Whether or not respondent Judge acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
discretion in taking cognizance of a case despite the failure to pay the required docket
fee;
On August 8, 1996, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed decision, 12
dismissing the petition for certiorari, upon a finding that no grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction was committed by the trial court in issuing the
questioned orders denying petitioner's motions to dismiss.
Not satisfied, petitioner filed the instant petition for review, raising the same issues
resolved by the Court of Appeals, namely:
I. Failure to pay the proper docket fee;

Xxxx xxxx xxxx

It can be readily seen that respondents' primary and ultimate objective in instituting
the action below was to recover the decedent's 1/3 share in the partnership's assets. While
they ask for an accounting of the partnership's assets and finances, what they are actually
asking is for the trial court to compel petitioner to pay and turn over their share, or the
equivalent value thereof, from the proceeds of the sale of the partnership assets. They
also assert that until and unless a proper accounting is done, the exact value of the
partnership's assets, as well as their corresponding share therein, cannot be ascertained.
Consequently, they feel justified in not having paid the commensurate docket fee as
required by the Rules of Court.
We do not agree. The trial court does not have to employ guesswork in ascertaining
the estimated value of the partnership's assets, for respondents themselves voluntarily
pegged the worth thereof at Thirty Million Pesos (P30,000,000.00). Hence, this case is
one which is really not beyond pecuniary estimation, but rather partakes of the nature of a
simple collection case where the value of the subject assets or amount demanded is
pecuniarily determinable. 13 While it is true that the exact value of the partnership's total
assets cannot be shown with certainty at the time of filing, respondents can and must
ascertain, through informed and practical estimation, the amount they expect to collect
from the partnership, particularly from petitioner, in order to determine the proper
amount of docket and other fees. 14 It is thus imperative for respondents to pay the
corresponding docket fees in order that the trial court may acquire jurisdiction over the
action. 15
Nevertheless, unlike in the case of Manchester Development Corp. v. Court of
Appeals, 16 where there was clearly an effort to defraud the government in avoiding to
pay the correct docket fees, we see no attempt to cheat the courts on the part of
respondents. In fact, the lower courts have noted their expressed desire to remit to the
court "any payable balance or lien on whatever award which the Honorable Court may
grant them in this case should there be any deficiency in the payment of the docket fees
to be computed by the Clerk of Court." 17 There is evident willingness to pay, and the

JBD 52
fact that the docket fee paid so far is inadequate is not an indication that they are trying to
avoid paying the required amount, but may simply be due to an inability to pay at the
time of filing. This consideration may have moved the trial court and the Court of
Appeals to declare that the unpaid docket fees shall be considered a lien on the judgment
award.
Petitioner, however, argues that the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in
condoning the non-payment of the proper legal fees and in allowing the same to become
a lien on the monetary or property judgment that may be rendered in favor of
respondents. There is merit in petitioner's assertion. The third paragraph of Section 16,
Rule 141 of the Rules of Court states that:
The legal fees shall be a lien on the monetary or property judgment in favor of the
pauper-litigant.
Respondents cannot invoke the above provision in their favor because it specifically
applies to pauper-litigants. Nowhere in the records does it appear that respondents are
litigating as paupers, and as such are exempted from the payment of court fees. 18
The rule applicable to the case at bar is Section 5(a) of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court,
which defines the two kinds of claims as: (1) those which are immediately ascertainable;
and (2) those which cannot be immediately ascertained as to the exact amount. This
second class of claims, where the exact amount still has to be finally determined by the
courts based on evidence presented, falls squarely under the third paragraph of said
Section 5(a), which provides:
In case the value of the property or estate or the sum claimed is less or more in
accordance with the appraisal of the court, the difference of fee shall be refunded or paid
as the case may be. (Emphasis ours)
In Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 19 this Court
pronounced that the above-quoted provision "clearly contemplates an initial payment of
the filing fees corresponding to the estimated amount of the claim subject to adjustment
as to what later may be proved." 20 Moreover, we reiterated therein the principle that the
payment of filing fees cannot be made contingent or dependent on the result of the case.
Thus, an initial payment of the docket fees based on an estimated amount must be paid
simultaneous with the filing of the complaint. Otherwise, the court would stand to lose
the filing fees should the judgment later turn out to be adverse to any claim of the
respondent heirs.
The matter of payment of docket fees is not a mere triviality. These fees are necessary
to defray court expenses in the handling of cases. Consequently, in order to avoid
tremendous losses to the judiciary, and to the government as well, the payment of docket
fees cannot be made dependent on the outcome of the case, except when the claimant is a
pauper-litigant.
Applied to the instant case, respondents have a specific claim — 1/3 of the value of all
the partnership assets — but they did not allege a specific amount. They did, however,
estimate the partnership's total assets to be worth Thirty Million Pesos (P30,000,000.00),
in a letter 21 addressed to petitioner. Respondents cannot now say that they are unable to
make an estimate, for the said letter and the admissions therein form part of the records of
this case. They cannot avoid paying the initial docket fees by conveniently omitting the
said amount in their amended complaint. This estimate can be made the basis for the
initial docket fees that respondents should pay. Even if it were later established that the
amount proved was less or more than the amount alleged or estimated, Rule 141, Section
5(a) of the Rules of Court specifically provides that the court may refund the excess or
JBD 53
exact additional fees should the initial payment be insufficient. It is clear that it is only
the difference between the amount finally awarded and the fees paid upon filing of this
complaint that is subject to adjustment and which may be subjected to a lien.
In the oft-quoted case of Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. v. Hon. Maximiano Asuncion, 22
this Court held that when the specific claim "has been left for the determination by the
court, the additional filing fee therefor shall constitute a lien on the judgment and it shall
be the responsibility of the Clerk of Court or his duly authorized deputy to enforce said
lien and assess and collect the additional fee." Clearly, the rules and jurisprudence
contemplate the initial payment of filing and docket fees based on the estimated claims of
the plaintiff, and it is only when there is a deficiency that a lien may be constituted on the
judgment award until such additional fee is collected.
Based on the foregoing, the trial court erred in not dismissing the complaint outright
despite their failure to pay the proper docket fees. Nevertheless, as in other procedural
rules, it may be liberally construed in certain cases if only to secure a just and speedy
disposition of an action. While the rule is that the payment of the docket fee in the proper
amount should be adhered to, there are certain exceptions which must be strictly
construed. 23
In recent rulings, this Court has relaxed the strict adherence to the Manchester
doctrine, allowing the plaintiff to pay the proper docket fees within a reasonable time
before the expiration of the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. 24
In the recent case of National Steel Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 25 this Court held that:
The court acquires jurisdiction over the action if the filing of the initiatory pleading is
accompanied by the payment of the requisite fees, or, if the fees are not paid at the time
of the filing of the pleading, as of the time of full payment of the fees within such
reasonable time as the court may grant, unless, of course, prescription has set in the
meantime.
It does not follow, however, that the trial court should have dismissed the complaint
for failure of private respondent to pay the correct amount of docket fees. Although the
payment of the proper docket fees is a jurisdictional requirement, the trial court may
allow the plaintiff in an action to pay the same within a reasonable time before the
expiration of the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. If the plaintiff fails to
comply within this requirement, the defendant should timely raise the issue of jurisdiction
or else he would be considered in estoppel. In the latter case, the balance between the
appropriate docket fees and the amount actually paid by the plaintiff will be considered a
lien or any award he may obtain in his favor. (Emphasis ours)
Accordingly, the trial court in the case at bar should determine the proper docket fee
based on the estimated amount that respondents seek to collect from petitioner, and direct
them to pay the same within a reasonable time, provided the applicable prescriptive or
reglementary period has not yet expired. Failure to comply therewith, and upon motion
by petitioner, the immediate dismissal of the complaint shall issue on jurisdictional
grounds.

TOTALITY RULE

Now, continuing with Section 33, it says there in paragraph [1]:

JBD 54
 “Provided further, That where there are several
claims or causes of actions between the same or
different parties, embodied in the same complaint,
the amount of the demand shall be the totality of
the claims in all the causes of action,
irrespective of whether the causes of action arose
out of the same or different transactions.”

Under This rule, where there are several claims or causes of actions between
the same or different parties, embodied in the same complaint, the amount of the
demand shall be the totality of the claims in all the causes of action, irrespective
of whether the causes of action arose out of the same or different transactions
(Sec. 33 as amended by RA No. 7691; PANTRANCO North Express Inc. vs.
Standard Insurance Company Inc., 453 SCRA 482).

ILLUSTRATION of joinder of causes of action:

The defendant secured from me two loans covered by 2 promissory notes and
all of them are due and he has not paid me any. Let's say each note covers a
principal amount of P175,000.00.

I decided to file one complaint embodying 2 causes of action against him

although I have the option also to file 2 separate complaints. If you will look at
the value of each claim which is P175,000 that is triable by the MTC but if you
will add the claims that will be P350,000.00.
Q: Which court will have jurisdiction?

A: The RTC because the jurisdictional amount is the total amount.

Never mind that there are 2 separate loans because the law says “irrespective
of whether the cause of action arose out of the same or different transactions.”

In the example, there are two causes of action arising from two separate
transactions. Illustrate a joinder of causes of action arising from only one
transaction.

Suppose the loan is payable in installments on separate dates. Each failure is a

cause of action.

Now in the examples, there is only one plaintiff and one defendant.

What about when there are several plaintiffs or defendants?

JBD 55
 EXAMPLE: There are four (4) passengers riding on a public vehicle. They
were all injured when the bus met an accident and all of them were hospitalized.
So after they were discharged, the four of them wanted to sue the bus company
for damages arising from contract of carriage or culpa contractual. They decided
to file only one complaint and, in effect, joined the 4 causes of action.
Q: What will be now the basis of jurisdiction the claim of each plaintiff or the
totality of the claims of the 4 plaintiffs?
A: The totality of the claims. You apply the totality rule because the law says
“where there are several claims or cause of action between the same or different
parties.”

So whether the parties are the same or the parties are different embodied in
the same complaint the amount of the demand shall be the totality of the claims
the totality rule applies in both situations.

Totality Rule subject to rule on joinder of parties

Where two or more plaintiffs, having separate causes of action, sue one
defendant or a plaintiff sues one or more defendants in a single complaint, based
on several causes of action for or against each other, respectively, the totality rule
applies only where there is a common question of fact or law among them as
provided in Section 6 of Rule 3.

When there are several parties-plaintiffs or defendants and there are several
causes of action, as in the last example given, when you join the causes of action
there will necessarily be a joinder of parties. In such a case there can only be a
proper joinder of causes of action when there is a proper joinder of parties and
the totality rule applies only when the joinder is proper.

When is a joinder of parties proper?

It is proper when there is a common question of fact and law. Note also that
joinder of parties is permissive (Sec. 6, R3)

Jurisdiction of the MTC in Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer

Sec. 33[2] Exclusive original jurisdiction over

cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer:
Provided, That when, in such cases, the defendant
raises the question of ownership in his pleadings
and the question of possession cannot be resolved
without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue
of ownership shall be resolved only to determine
the issue of possession. x x x x”

JBD 56
 These are called accion interdictal and the only issue is physical possession of
the property. The two cases should not be confused with accion publiciana which
is also the recovery of possession.
In unlawful detainer, the plaintiff prays not only to eject the defendant but
also to claim for back rentals or the reasonable amount of the use and occupation
of the property in case of forcible entry.

Q: Suppose the unpaid rentals already amount to almost half a million pesos,
where should the case be filed?
A: The case should still be filed with the MTC. What determines jurisdiction is
the nature of the action, and not the amount of recoverable rentals.

Q: In an action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer, can the party present
evidence of ownership?
A: The general rule is NO because the MTC cannot adjudicate ownership.
That has to be threshed out in the proper civil action in the RTC. But if evidence
of ownership is presented in the forcible entry or unlawful detainer case, it is
only incidental and it is only resolved to determine the issue of possession. Such
declaration of ownership is not final. The question of ownership must be
litigated in a separate action in the RTC.

Let us now proceed to the third paragraph of Section 33 as amended by R.A.

7691:

Real Actions other then Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer

[3] Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil

actions which involve title to, or possession of,
real property or any interest therein where the
assessed value of the property or interest therein
does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00)
or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such
assessed value does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of
whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses
and costs: Provided, That in cases of land not
declared for tax purposes, the value of such
property shall be determined by the assessed value
of the adjacent lots. (As amended by RA 7691)

Aside from forcible entry and unlawful detainer, MTCs now have jurisdiction
over other real actions or actions involving title to or possession, or any interest
therein, like accion publiciana and accion reinvidicatoria cases where the
assessed value of the land should not exceed P20,000. In Metro Manila, it is not
exceeding P50,000 In cases of land not declared for taxation purposes, the value
of such property shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lots..
JBD 57
That is the amendment brought about by RA 7691 which expanded the
jurisdiction of the MTC.

An accion reivindicatoria is a suit which has for its object the recovery of
possession over the real property as owner. It involves recovery of ownership
and possession based on said ownership.
An accion publiciana is one for the recovery of possession or the right to
possess. It is also referred to as an ejectment suit after the expiration of one year
after the occurrence of the cause of action or from the unlawful withholding of
possession of the realty. It is considered a plenary action to recover the right of
possession when dispossession is effected by means other than unlawful detainer
or forcible entry.

What is the Assessed value?

The assessed value of real property can have reference only to the tax rolls in
the municipality where the property is located, and is contained in the tax
declaration. It is elementary that the tax declaration indicating the assessed value
of the property enjoys the presumption of regularity as it has been issued by the
proper government agency (Hilario vs. Salvador, 457 SCRA 815).

In Vda. De Barrera vs. Heirs of Legaspi, GR No. 174346, Sept. 12, 2008, the
facts point to a complaint for reconveyance of possession of real property with
preliminary injunction and damages filed in the RTC of Tangub City. One of the
defenses raised by the defendants was the court’s lack of jurisdiction over the
complaint, the assessed value of the subject property as reflected in the
uncontroverted tax declaration is only P11,160.00. The trial court, in its decision,
rejected the contention of the defendant holding that since the complaint alleged
the estimated value of the land as P50,000.00, such allegation must prevail over
the assessed value of P11,160.00 relied upon by the defense. What determines the
nature of the action and the jurisdiction over the complaint, said the trial court,
are the facts alleged in the complaint and not those alleged in the answer of the
defendants. The CA affirmed.
On appeal by certiorari the SC held:

“The subject land has an assessed value of P11,160.00 as reflected in the Tax
Declaration No. 7565, a common exhibit of the parties. The bare claim of
respondents that it has a value of P50,000.00 thus fails. The case, therefore, falls
within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the municipal trial court.
It was error then for the RTC to take cognizance of the complaint based on the
allegation that “the present estimated value of the land is P50,000.00”…The
estimated value, commonly referred to as the fair market value of the property.”

JBD 58
 B.) DELEGATED JURISDICTION OF THE MTC

Sec. 34. Delegated Jurisdiction in Cadastral

and Land Registration Cases. - MetTCs, MTCs and
MCTCs may be assigned by the Supreme Court to hear
and determine cadastral or land registration cases
covering lots where there is no controversy or
opposition, or contested lots where the value of
which does not exceed One hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000.00), such value to be ascertained by the
affidavit of the claimant or by agreement of the
respective claimants if there are more than one, or
from the corresponding tax declarations of the real
property. Their decisions in these cases shall be
appealable in the same manner as decisions of the
RTCs. (As amended by RA 7691)

As a rule cadastral and land registration cases

fall under the jurisdiction of the RTC.

What is the difference between a land registration proceeding and a cadastral

proceeding?

Cadastral is compulsory registration.

This is related to your study of Land, Titles and Deeds (The Property
Registration Decree). When you file a petition for land registration, the object is
to have your property registered and fall under the Torrens System of the Land
Registration.

Q: Now, what is this delegated jurisdiction all about?

A: It refers only to cadastral and land registration cases which involve the
titling of property under the Torrens system or cadastral land registration.

Under the Property Registration Decree, only the RTC has authority to
entertain land registration and cadastral cases. But now, Section 34 gives the
Supreme Court the authority to DELEGATE to MTCs to hear and decide land
registration and cadastral cases under the following conditions:
1.) when there is no controversy or nobody is contesting your petition; or
2.) even if the petition is contested where the value of the land to be titled
does not exceed P100,000.

JBD 59
 In which case, these MTCs can decide and their decisions are appealable
directly to the CA because in exercise of delegated jurisdiction it is acting as an
RTC.

The value of the lot shall be ascertained by the affidavit of the claimant or by
agreement of the respective claimants if there are more than one, or from the
corresponding tax declaration of the real property.

Now do not confuse this P100,000 (Section 34) with the P20,000 under Section
33. Section 34 deals with cadastral and land registration cases. Section 33
involves civil cases (accion publiciana, etc.)

C.) SPECIAL JURISDICTION OF MTC

Sec. 35. Special jurisdiction in certain cases.

- In the absence of all the Regional Trial Judges
in a province or city, any Metropolitan Trial
Judge, Municipal Trial Judge, Municipal Circuit
Trial Judge may hear and decide petitions for a
writ of habeas corpus or applications for bail in
criminal cases in the province or city where the
absent Regional Trial Judges sit.

This is what we call special jurisdiction. It only applies to two (2) types of
cases: (1) Habeas corpus and (2) hearing of petitions for bail.

Remember that habeas corpus is not within the jurisdiction of the MTC. It is
with the RTC. In an application for bail the RTC also has jurisdiction because the
offense may be a heinous one, but under the law on criminal procedure you can
file a petition for bail to have your temporary freedom while the case is going on.
That’s supposed to be in the RTC.

But suppose there is no available RTC judge, all of them are sick or all of them
are attending a convention (this actually happened in Davao in 1990) Section 35
provides that the MTC, in the absence of RTC judges, can hear and decide on
habeas corpus case petitions and applications or petitions for bail in criminal
cases.

That is allowed because of the urgency of the situation. There is no need for a
SC authorization. However, this is only allowed in the absence of the RTC
judges. But if the RTC judge comes back, he has to take over the petition.

REVISED RULE ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE as amended by A.M. 02-11-

09-SC, effective November 25, 2002

JBD 60
 Cases subject to summary procedure

(a) Forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases; and

(b) All other claims where the total claim does not exceed P100,000.00 (outside Metro
Manila), or does not exceed P200,000.00 (Metro Manila) exclusive of interests and
costs. Probate proceedings are not covered by the rule on summary procedure even
if the gross value of the estate does not exceed P100,000.00 or P200,000.00.

Some basic principles to be remembered in civil cases subject to a summary procedure:

(a) Not all pleadings in an ordinary civil action are allowed in a summary procedure.
The only pleadings allowed are (1) complaint; (2) compulsory counterclaim; (3)
cross-claim pleaded in the answer, (4) answers to these pleadings (Sec. 3)
(b) The court in a summary procedure may dismiss the case outright on any of the
grounds for the dismissal of a civil action (Sec. 4)
(c) Should the defendant fail to answer the complaint within the period of ten (10)
days from service of summons, the court may motu proprio, or on motion of the
plaintiff, render judgment (not an order declaring the defendant in default) as may
be warranted by the facts alleged and limited to what is prayed for (Sec. 6)
(d) There shall be preliminary conference held but there shall be no trial. Instead the
parties shall submit affidavits and position papers (Secs ,8,9)
(e) Within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the last affidavits and positions papers,
or the expiration of the period for filing the same, the court shall render judgment
(Sec. 10)
(f) As a rule a motion to dismiss is not allowed except on either of two grounds (1)
lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, or (2) failure to comply with the
barangay conciliation proceedings (Sec. 19(a))
(g) Although a petition for certiorari is prohibited in cases subject to summary
procedure, the Court in one case allowed the petition because the trial court
gravely abused its discretion by indefinitely suspending the proceedings in
ejectment cases thus, acting contrary to the purposes of the Rules on Summary
Procedure. The SC recognized that because the order of the trial court cannot be
appealed from it being an interlocutory and since the proceedings are covered by
the Rules on Summary Procedure, a ‘procedural void’ exists. Invoking its power to
suspend the rules to promote substantial justice, the SC gave due course to the
petition pro hac vice because of the extraordinary circumstances of the case. The
Court observed that allowing the petition would avoid the mischiefs sought to be
curbed by the Rules and would give spirit and life to the Rules on Summary
Procedure (Go vs. CA 297 SCRA 574).
(h) It must be emphasized that in a civil case governed by the Rules on Summary
Procedure, no hearing is conducted. Instead, the parties are required to submit their
respective position papers (Five Star Marketing Corporation vs. Booc, 535 SCRA
28).

Q: Now, what are the PROHIBITED documents, motions, or pleadings under the
Summary Rules?
A: The following (Under Section 19):
JBD 61
 1.) Motion to quash except when your ground is
a.) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter; or
b.) failure to comply with the Barangay Conciliation;
2.) Motion for bill of particulars;
3.) Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a judgment, or for reopening of
trial; your remedy here is appeal;
4.) Petition for relief from judgement;
5.) Motion for extension of time to file an affidavit;
6.) Memoranda;
7.) Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition against any interlocutory
orders issued by the court;
8.) Motion to declare the defendant in default;
9.) Dilatory motions postponements;
10.) Reply;
11.) Third-party complaints;
12.) Interventions;

Jurisdiction Over Small Claims Cases

Introduction of the Concept of Small Claims Court in the

Philippines
The idea of establishing Small Claims Courts in the Philippines
was first proposed to the Supreme Court through a study conducted
in 1999 by Justice Josue N. Bellosillo, former Senior Associate
Justice of the Supreme Court. After observing small claims courts
and interviewing judges of such courts in Dallas, Texas, United
States in 1999, Justice Bellosillo proposed in a Report that courts
can be established in the Philippines to handle exclusively small
claims without the participation of lawyers and where ordinary
litigants can prosecute and defend a small claims action through
ready-made forms. He envisioned the small claims courts as another
positive approach, in addition to mandatory pre-trial, for solving
court congestion and delay.6 The study and report was subsequently
endorsed for legislative action to Senator Franklin Drilon who later
funded a project for this purpose.
At the regular session of the Fourteenth Congress, House Bill
No. 2921 entitled “An Act Establishing Small Claims Courts” was
introduced by Congressman Jose V. Yap. Thereafter, on July 3,
2007, Senate Bill No. 800 entitled “Philippine Small Claims Court
Act” was filed by Senator Ramon A. Revilla, Jr. and, on September
3, 2007, the bill passed First Reading and was referred to the
Committee(s) on Justice and Human Rights and Finance. The same
is still pending with these committees at present.
In 2007, the United States Agency for International Development
(USAID) awarded a two-year grant to the American Bar Association-
JBD 62
Rule of Law Initiative (ABA-ROLI) to pursue judicial reform
activities in the Philippines for the fiscal period October 2007 to
September 30, 2009 . In a letter to Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno
dated October 10, 2007, ABA-ROLI proposed the establishment of
small claims pilot courts among first level courts in different regions
of the Philippines. The small claims pilot court project was proposed
by ABA to USAID after consultation with various Supreme Court
officials in conjunction with the 2000 Action Plan for Judicial Reform.
Among the critical issues being addressed by the APJR are
case congestion and delay. The congestion of case dockets is central
to a multitude of problems, either as cause or effect; it is either the
34 A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC
manifestation or the source of other difficulties. Addressing this
concern is thus an imperative8 which is why present reforms in
judicial systems and procedures have included the following:
1. streamlining procedural rules to eliminate provisions
that cause delay and permit dilatory tactics;
2. re-engineering the jurisdictional structure of the
courts to ensure easy geographical access to the courts
particularly by the poor litigants;
3. improving the case management system toward more
transparency, accountability and integrity of the
judicial process and for better efficiency; and
4. strengthening of the mediation mechanism to promote
early dispute resolution nationwide.This involves the
institutionalization of court-annexed mediation, and
the establishment of a Mediation Center to continually
monitor and assess the performance of the system
and provide training and research.
Notwithstanding the absence of a law at the present time creating
small claims courts in our country, the Supreme Court through a
program in partnership with ABA-ROLI and USAID, can promulgate
and implement a simplified rule of procedure exclusively for small
claims and assign a certain number of existing first level courts to
take cognizance of small claims. This does not need legislative
action as the Court can designate several first level courts all over
the country to jump-start the pilot project. Thus, pursuant to its
rule-making power, the Court under the present Constitution can
adopt a special rule of procedure to govern small claims cases and
select pilot courts that would empower the people to bring suits
before them pro se to resolve legal disputes involving simple issues
of law and procedure without the need for legal representation and
extensive judicial intervention. This system will enhance access to
justice especially by those who cannot afford the high costs of
litigation even in cases of relatively small value.13 It is envisioned
that by facilitating the traffic of cases through simple and expeditious
JBD 63
rules and means, our Court can improve the perception of justice in
this country, thus giving citizens a renewed “stake” in preserving
peace in the land. This is a hopeful message to our people that
Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases 35
“there is no need to despair for there is deliverance in law; that is
a promise that has been fulfilled by law in the past; it is a promise
law will again fulfill in the future.”14
In December 2007, the Supreme Court established a Technical
Working Group composed of the Court Administrator, the Program
Management Office Administrator, selected judges and other officials
of the Supreme Court and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to
undertake the following activities:
1. The development of Rules and Procedures to
Implement Pilot Small Claims Courts;
2. The establishment of Criteria to Select Appropriate
Regions/Judges for Pilot Small Claims Courts and
set Peso Limits for the Small Claims Courts;
3. Through the Philippine Judicial Academy, the conduct
of training programs for Judges and their personnel
participating in the Pilot Small Claims Courts project;
and
4. The employment of “Justice on Wheels” buses to
launch pilot small claims tribunals.

Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases 1

A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC
RULE OF PROCEDURE
FOR SMALL CLAIMS CASES

EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 2008

MANILA, PHILIPPINES
SEPTEMBER 2008

RULE OF PROCEDURE
FOR SMALL CLAIMS CASES
SECTION 1. Title.—This Rule shall be known as “The Rule of
Procedure for Small Claims Cases.”
SEC. 2. Scope.—This Rule shall govern the procedure in
actions before the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts
in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
for payment of money where the value of the claim does not exceed
One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) exclusive of interest
and costs.
JBD 64
Explanatory Note: The purpose of a small claims process
is to provide an inexpensive and expeditious means to settle disputes
over small amounts. For purposes of the project, the amount
has been set for claims involving amounts of not more than
P100,000.00.
The theory behind the small claims system is that ordinary
litigation fails to bring practical justice to the parties when the
disputed claim is small, because the time and expense required by
the ordinary litigation process is so disproportionate to the amount
involved that it discourages a just resolution of the dispute. The
small claims process is designed to function quickly and informally.
There are no attorneys, no formal pleadings and no strict legal rules
of evidence. The small claims court system is not a “typical inferior
court.” Parties are encouraged to file small claims court actions to
resolve their minor disputes as opposed to resorting to self-help or
forcible means to seek their remedy. (Pace v. Hillcrest Motor Co.,
161 Cal. Rptr. 663, 664 Ct. App. 1980)

SEC. 3. Definition of Terms.—For purposes of this Rule:

(a) Plaintiff refers to the party who initiated a small
claims action. The term includes a defendant who
has filed a counterclaim against plaintiff;
(b) Defendant is the party against whom the plaintiff has
filed a small claims action. The term includes a
plaintiff against whom a defendant has filed a claim,
or a person who replies to the claim;
(c) Person is an individual, corporation, partnership,
limited liability partnership, association, or other
juridical entity endowed with personality by law;
(d) Individual is a natural person;
(e) Motion means a party’s request, written or oral, to
the court for an order or other action. It shall
include an informal written request to the court,
such as a letter;
(f) Good cause means circumstances sufficient to justify
the requested order or other action, as determined
by the judge; and
(g) Affidavit means a written statement or declaration of
facts that are sworn or affirmed to be true.
SEC. 4. Applicability.—The Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall apply this Rule in all actions
which are: (a) purely civil in nature where the claim or relief prayed
for by the plaintiff is solely for payment or reimbursement of sum
JBD 65
of money, and (b) the civil aspect of criminal actions, either filed
before the institution of the criminal action, or reserved upon the
filing of the criminal action in court, pursuant to Rule 111 of the
Revised Rules Of Criminal Procedure.
These claims or demands may be:
(a) For money owed under any of the following:
1. Contract of Lease;
2. Contract of Loan;
3. Contract of Services;
4. Contract of Sale; or
5. Contract of Mortgage;
(b) For damages arising from any of the following:
1. Fault or negligence;
2. Quasi-contract; or
3. Contract;
(c) The enforcement of a barangay amicable settlement
or an arbitration award involving a money claim
covered by this Rule pursuant to Sec. 417 of Republic
Act 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government
Code of 1991.

Explanatory Note: The kinds of cases that can be filed in

Small Claims Court vary, but the case must seek money only. For
example, a suit cannot be brought in Small Claims Court to force
a person or business to fix a damaged good; or to demand fulfillment
of a promised obligation which is not purely for money, or to seek
money to compensate for pain and suffering. Some of the kinds of
cases which are allowed as small claims include the following:
1. Actual damage caused to vehicles, other personal
property, real property or person;
2. Payment or reimbursement for property, deposit, or
money loaned;
3. Payment for services rendered, insurance claim, rent,
commissions, or for goods sold and delivered;
4. Money claim pursuant to a contract, warranty or
agreement; and
5. Purely civil action for payment of money covered by
bounced or stopped check.

SEC. 5. Commencement of Small Claims Action.—A small

claims action is commenced by filing with the court an accomplished
and verified Statement of Claim (Form 1-SCC) in duplicate,
accompanied by a Certification of Non-forum Shopping (Form 1-A,
SCC), and two (2) duly certified photocopies of the actionable
document/s subject of the claim, as well as the affidavits of witnesses
JBD 66
and other evidence to support the claim. No evidence shall be
allowed during the hearing which was not attached to or submitted
together with the Claim, unless good cause is shown for the admission
of additional evidence.
No formal pleading, other than the Statement of Claim described
in this Rule, is necessary to initiate a small claims action.
SEC. 6. Joinder of Claims.—Plaintiff may join in a single
statement of claim one or more separate small claims against a
defendant provided that the total amount claimed, exclusive of interest
and costs, does not exceed P100,000.00.
SEC. 7. Affidavits.—The affidavits submitted under this Rule
shall state only facts of direct personal knowledge of the affiants
which are admissible in evidence.
A violation of this requirement shall subject the party, and the
counsel who assisted the party in the preparation of the affidavits,
if any, to appropriate disciplinary action. The inadmissible affidavit(s)
or portion(s) thereof shall be expunged from the record.
SEC. 8. Payment of Filing Fees.—The plaintiff shall pay the
docket and other legal fees prescribed under Rule 141 of the Revised
Rules of Court, unless allowed to litigate as an indigent.
A claim filed with a motion to sue as indigent (Form 6-SCC)
shall be referred to the Executive Judge for immediate action in case
of multi-sala courts, or to the Presiding Judge of the court hearing
the small claims case. If the motion is granted by the Executive
Judge, the case shall be raffled off or assigned to the court designated
to hear small claims cases. If the motion is denied, the plaintiff
shall be given five (5) days within which to pay the docket fees,
otherwise, the case shall be dismissed without prejudice. In no case
shall a party, even if declared an indigent, be exempt from the
payment of the P1,000.00 fee for service of summons and processes
in civil cases.

Explanatory Note: A plaintiff may commence an action in the

small claims court by filing a Statement of Claim under oath with
the Clerk of the first level court in person or by mail. The claim
form shall be a simple nontechnical form approved or adopted by
the Supreme Court. The claim form shall set forth (1) the name and
address of the defendant, if known; (2) the amount and the basis of
the claim; (3) that the plaintiff, where possible, has demanded
payment and, in applicable cases, possession of the property; (4)
that the defendant has failed or refused to pay, and where applicable,
has refused to surrender the property; and (5) that the plaintiff
understands that the judgment on his or her claim will be conclusive
and without a right of appeal. The plaintiff should attach to the
claim all documents necessary to prove his/her right to reliefs prayed
for. The form or accompanying instructions shall include information
JBD 67
that the plaintiff (1) may not be represented by an attorney; (2) has
no right of appeal; and (3) may ask the court to waive fees for filing
and serving the claim on the ground that the plaintiff is indigent
unable to pay them, using the forms approved by the Supreme Court
for that purpose.

SEC. 9. Dismissal of the Claim.—After the court determines

that the case falls under this Rule, it may, from an examination of
the allegations of the Statement of Claim and such evidence attached
thereto, by itself, dismiss the case outright on any of the grounds
apparent from the Claim for the dismissal of a civil action.

Explanatory Note: Jurisdiction and venue requirements in small

claims actions shall be the same as in other civil actions provided
in the Rules of Civil Procedure. A defendant may challenge
jurisdiction or venue or court location by including these defenses
in his Response before appearing in the scheduled hearing. In all
cases, even if the defendant does not ask for dismissal of the case
in the Response or appear at the hearing, the court shall inquire into
the facts sufficiently to determine whether jurisdiction and authority
of the court over the action are proper, and shall make its
determination accordingly.

SEC. 10. Summons and Notice of Hearing.—If no ground for

dismissal is found, the court shall forthwith issue Summons (Form
2-SCC) on the day of receipt of the Statement of Claim, directing
the defendant to submit a verified Response.
The court shall also issue a Notice (Form 4-SCC) to both
parties, directing them to appear before it on a specific date and
time for hearing, with a warning that no unjustified postponement
shall be allowed, as provided in Section 19 of this Rule.
The summons and notice to be served on the defendant shall
be accompanied by a copy of the Statement of Claim and documents
submitted by plaintiff, and a copy of the Response (Form 3-SCC) to
be accomplished by the defendant. The Notice shall contain an
express prohibition against the filing of a motion to dismiss or any
other motion under Section 14 of this Rule.
SEC. 11. Response.—The defendant shall file with the court
and serve on the plaintiff a duly accomplished and verified Response
within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from receipt of
summons. The Response shall be accompanied by certified
photocopies of documents, as well as affidavits of witnesses and
other evidence in support thereof. No evidence shall be allowed
during the hearing which was not attached to or submitted together
JBD 68
with the Response, unless good cause is shown for the admission of
additional evidence.
SEC. 12. Effect of Failure to File Response.—Should the
defendant fail to file his Response within the required period, the
court by itself shall render judgment as may be warranted by the
facts alleged in the Statement of Claim limited to what is prayed for.
The court however, may, in its discretion, reduce the amount of
damages for being excessive or unconscionable.
SEC. 13. Counterclaims Within the Coverage of this Rule.—
If at the time the action is commenced, the defendant possesses a
claim against the plaintiff that (a) is within the coverage of this
Rule, exclusive of interest and costs; (b) arises out of the same
transaction or event that is the subject matter of the plaintiff’s
claim; (c) does not require for its adjudication the joinder of third
parties; and (d) is not the subject of another pending action, the
claim shall be filed as a counterclaim in the Response; otherwise,
the defendant shall be barred from suit on the counterclaim.
The defendant may also elect to file a counterclaim against the
plaintiff that does not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence,
provided that the amount and nature thereof are within the coverage
of this Rule and the prescribed docket and other legal fees are paid.

Explanatory Note: If a defendant has a claim against a plaintiff

that exceeds the limits stated in Section 2 of this Rule, and the claim
relates to the contract, transaction, matter, or event which is the
subject of the plaintiff’s claim, the defendant may commence an
action against the plaintiff in a court of competent jurisdiction. If
said claim which is beyond the limit of money claim provided in this
Rule is filed with the Response before the Small Claims Court, the
latter shall dismiss the counterclaim.

SEC. 14. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions.—The following

pleadings, motions, or petitions shall not be allowed in the cases
covered by this Rule:
(a) Motion to dismiss the complaint except on the ground
of lack of jurisdiction;
(b) Motion for a bill of particulars;
(c) Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a
judgment, or for reopening of trial;
(d) Petition for relief from judgment;
(e) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings,
affidavits, or any other paper;
(f) Memoranda;
(g) Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition
against any interlocutory order issued by the court;
JBD 69
(h) Motion to declare the defendant in default;
(i) Dilatory motions for postponement;
(j) Reply;
(k) Third-party complaints; and
(l) Interventions.
SEC. 15. Availability of Forms; Assistance by Court
Personnel.—The Clerk of Court or other court personnel shall provide
such assistance as may be requested by a plaintiff or a defendant
regarding the availability of forms and other information about the
coverage, requirements as well as procedure for small claims cases.
SEC. 16. Appearance.—The parties shall appear at the
designated date of hearing personally or through a representative
authorized under a Special Power of Attorney (Form 5-SCC) to
enter into an amicable settlement, to submit to Judicial Dispute
Resolution (JDR) and to enter into stipulations or admissions of
facts and of documentary exhibits.
SEC. 17. Appearance of Attorneys Not Allowed.—No attorney
shall appear in behalf of or represent a party at the hearing, unless
the attorney is the plaintiff or defendant.
If the court determines that a party cannot properly present his/
her claim or defense and needs assistance, the court may, in its
discretion, allow another individual who is not an attorney to assist
that party upon the latter’s consent.

Explanatory Note: Except as permitted by this section, no

attorney shall appear in a small claims action except when the latter
shall maintain or defend an action in any of the following capacities:
(1) By or against himself or herself;
(2) By or against a partnership in which he or she is a
general partner and in which all the partners are
attorneys; or
(3) By or against a professional corporation of which he
or she is an officer or director and of which all other
officers and directors are attorneys.
Nothing in this section shall prevent an attorney from doing
any of the following:
(1) Providing advice to a party to a small claims action,
either before or after the commencement of the action;
or
(2) Submitting an affidavit as a witness for a party in
order to state facts of which he or she has personal
knowledge and about which he or she is competent
to do so.
If the court determines that a party does not speak or understand
English or Filipino sufficiently to comprehend the proceedings or
give testimony, to the questions of the court, if any, and needs
JBD 70
assistance in so doing, the court may permit another individual
(other than an attorney) to assist that party. If the court interpreter
or other competent interpreter of the language or dialect known to
the party is not available to aid that party in a small claims action,
at the first hearing of the case the court shall postpone the hearing
one time only to allow the party the opportunity to obtain another
individual (other than an attorney) to assist that party. Any additional
continuances shall be at the sound discretion of the court.

SEC. 18. Non-appearance of Parties.—Failure of the plaintiff

to appear shall be cause for the dismissal of the claim without
prejudice. The defendant who appears shall be entitled to judgment
on a permissive counterclaim.
Failure of the defendant to appear shall have the same effect
as failure to file a Response under Section 12 of this Rule. This shall
not apply where one of two or more defendants who are sued under
a common cause of action and have pleaded a common defense
appears at the hearing.
Failure of both parties to appear shall cause the dismissal with
prejudice of both the claim and counterclaim.
SEC. 19. Postponement When Allowed.—A request for
postponement of a hearing may be granted only upon proof of the
physical inability of the party to appear before the court on the
scheduled date and time. A party may avail of only one (1)
postponement.

Explanatory Note: A party may submit an oral or written

request to postpone a hearing date for good cause, as follows:
(1) If the written request is in writing, it may be made
either by letter or on a form adopted or approved by
the Supreme Court;
(2) The request shall be filed before the hearing date
and accompanied by proof of physical inability, unless
the court determines that the requesting party has
good cause to file the request on the date of hearing
itself; and
(3) If the court finds that the interests of justice would
be served by postponing the hearing, the court shall
do so and shall notify all parties by mail on the same
day of the new hearing date, time and place.
This Section does not limit the inherent power of the court to
order postponements of hearings in strictly appropriate circumstances.
The postponement fee of One Hundred Pesos (or as provided in
Rule 141, Revised Rules of Court, as amended on Legal Fees) shall
be charged and collected before the filing of a request for
JBD 71
postponement and rescheduling of a hearing date.

SEC. 20. Duty of the Court.—At the beginning of the court

session, the judge shall read aloud a short statement explaining the
nature, purpose and the rule of procedure of small claims cases.
SEC. 21. Judicial Dispute Resolution.—At the hearing, the
judge shall conduct Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) through
mediation, conciliation, early neutral evaluation, or any other mode
of JDR. Any settlement (Form 7-SCC) or resolution (Form 8-SCC)
of the dispute shall be reduced into writing, signed by the parties
and submitted to the court for approval (Form 12-SCC).
SEC. 22. Failure of JDR.—If JDR fails and the parties agree
in writing (Form 10-SCC) that the hearing of the case shall be
presided over by the judge who conducted the JDR, the hearing
shall so proceed in an informal and expeditious manner and
terminated
within one (1) day.
Absent such agreement, (a) in case of a multi-sala court, the
case shall, on the same day, be transmitted (Form 11-SCC) to the
Office of the Clerk of Court for immediate referral by the Executive
Judge to the pairing judge for hearing and decision within five (5)
working days from referral; and (b) in case of a single sala court,
the pairing judge shall hear and decide the case in the court of origin
within five (5) working days from referral by the JDR judge.

Explanatory Note: In hearings before the small claims court,

witnesses shall still be sworn in. The judge shall conduct the hearing
in an informal manner so as to do substantial justice between the
parties. The judge shall have the discretion to admit all evidence
which may be of probative value although not in accordance with
formal rules of practice, procedure, pleading or evidence provided
in the Rules of Court, except that privileged communications shall
not be admissible. The object of such hearings shall be to determine
the rights of the litigants on the merits and to dispense expeditious
justice between the parties.
An interventionist role by judges in such hearings is effective
in eliciting evidence from litigants in person. It is seen by
unrepresented parties as a “helping hand” which they appreciate,
provided that judges avoid the danger of appearing to be partial. By
discussing the facts of the case, judges find what common ground
does exist between the parties. This tends to narrow the differences
between the parties and make the final judicial decision easier –
whereas traditional open court trials, with the presence of lawyers
and the use of cross-examination tend to polarize the parties, increase
antagonism and heighten the differences.
JBD 72
In this regard, Lord Woolf, Great Britain’s case management
expert, has observed:
“The role of the judge in small claims is not only
that of an adjudicator. It is a key safeguard of the rights
of both parties. In most cases, the judge is effectively a
substitute for a legal representative. His duty is to ascertain
the main matters at issue, to elicit the evidence, to reach
a view on the facts of the matter and to give a decision.
In some cases he may encourage the parties to settle. In
doing so he should ensure that both parties have presented
the evidence and called the witnesses germane to their
case and that he has identified and considered any issue
of law which is pertinent to the case in hand. He must
also hold the ring and ensure that each party has a fair
chance to present his own case and to challenge that of his
opponent.”
The key judicial skills in conducting such hearings are to
maintain a balance between informality and fairness, to ensure a
level playing field and to protect the weak and the scrupulous. In
practice, this is achieved by preventing interruptions and parties
talking over each other, and making it clear that both parties will
have plenty of time to say all that they wish before the end of the
hearing.

SEC. 23. Decision.—After the hearing, the court shall render

its decision on the same day, based on the facts established by the
evidence (Form 13-SCC). The decision shall immediately be entered
by the Clerk of Court in the court docket for civil cases and a copy
thereof forthwith served on the parties.
The decision shall be final and unappealable.

Explanatory Note: Despite the relative informality of the

procedure, judgments are based upon a strict application of the
substantive law and an objective judicial analysis of the facts. The
judge is duty-bound to give the legal basis for the findings.
The prohibition against appeals assures immediate and swift
justice.
The right to appeal is not a natural right nor a part due process.
It is merely a statutory privilege and a procedural remedy of statutory
origin, a remedy that may be exercised only in the manner and in
accordance with the provisions of the law authorizing such exercise.
The applicable provisions of the law allowing appeals from decisions
of the first level courts are Sections 36 and 38 of B.P. Blg. 129, as
amended, also known as “The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980.”
The procedure on appeal is subject to the limitations and restrictions
JBD 73
provided by this Act and any such rules as the Supreme Court may
hereafter prescribe. Sec. 36 of B.P. Blg. 129 provides an instance
wherein the Supreme Court may adopt special procedures, including
cases where appeal may not be allowed, to achieve an expeditious
and inexpensive determination of particular cases requiring summary
disposition.

SEC. 24. Execution.—If the decision is rendered in favor of

the plaintiff, execution shall issue upon motion (Form 9-SCC).
SEC. 25. Applicability of the Rules of Civil Procedure.—The
Rules of Civil Procedure shall apply suppletorily insofar as they are
not inconsistent with this Rule.
SEC. 26. Effectivity.—This Rule shall take effect on October
1, 2008 for the pilot courts designated to apply the procedure for
small claims cases following its publication in two newspapers of
general circulation.

12 A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC

FORM 1-SCC
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
_______________________________
_______________________________
_______________________________
__________________________,
Plaintiff,
vs. Civil Case No. ________________
For: ______________________
__________________________,
Defendant.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
Plaintiff respectfully alleges:
1. The personal circumstances of the parties are as follows:
NAME OF PLAINTIFF/S SEX AGE CIVIL STATUS
______________________ ______ _____ _________
INDIVIDUAL___ CORPORATION___ PARTNERSHIP___ SOLE
PROPRIETORSHIP ___
NAME OF
REPRESENTATIVE:_________________________________________
ADDRESS ZIP CODE
___________________________________________________
_________
JBD 74
NAME OF DEFENDANTS//S SEX AGE CIVIL STATUS
______________________ ______ _____ _________
INDIVIDUAL___ CORPORATION__ _PARTNERSHIP___ SOLE
PROPRIETORSHIP ___
NAME OF REPRESENTATIVE:
________________________________________
ADDRESS ZIP CODE
___________________________________________________
_________
2. Plaintiff is suing defendant for:
CAUSE OF ACTION
_____ Collection of Sum of Money
_____ Damages
_____ Civil aspect of Criminal Case
_____ Enforcement of Barangay Agreement
Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases 13
3. Plaintiff’s cause of action arose from and is evidenced by:
ACTIONABLE DOCUMENT/S AFFIDAVIT/S
_____ Promissory Note/Undertaking How many: _____
_____ Contract/Agreement
_____ Receipt
_____ Others
4. The principal obligation of defendant/s amounting to
P_____________________ became due and demandable on
______________.
Interest at the rate of ______% per annum/per month accrued on the
principal sum due from such date of default.
5. Despite repeated demands by plaintiff, the latest of which was on
_______________, defendant has failed to pay the obligation.
6. _____(a) This claim has been referred to the appropriate barangay
authorities but no settlement was reached between the parties. A
Certificate to
File Action was issued to the plaintiff, the original of which is attached
hereto.
_____(b) The parties are not covered by the barangay mandatory
conciliation process under the Local Government Code of the
Philippines.
Prayer
WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays for judgment to be rendered
ordering defendant to pay plaintiff the amount of
P________________________, with interest at the rate of ____% per
annum/
per month, from ___________, until fully paid.
___________________________; _____20___.
PLAINTIFF
PLACE WHERE FILED
JBD 75
FORM 1-A-SCC
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF
NON-FORUM SHOPPING
I, _________________________________, of legal age,
____________________ ______________________________, and a
resident
of __________________________________________________ ,
after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, hereby,
depose and
say:
1. That I am the _________________ in the above-entitled case and
have caused this ______________________________ to be
prepared; that I read and understood its contents which are true
and correct of my own personal knowledge and/or based on
authentic records;
2. That I have not commenced any action or proceeding involving
the same issue in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or any
other tribunal or agency; that to the best of my knowledge, no such
action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals or any other tribunal or agency, and that, if I should learn
thereafter that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is
pending before these courts or tribunal or agency, I undertake to
report that fact to the Court within five (5) days therefrom.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this
____________ day of __________________, 20 __.
_______________________
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _________ day of
_____________, 20 ___ .
NOTARY PUBLIC
(citizenship) (civil status)
(Name)

FORM 2-SCC
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
_______________________________
_______________________________
_______________________________
__________________________,
Plaintiff,
vs. Civil Case No. ________________
For: ________________________
__________________________,
Defendant.
JBD 76
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
SUMMONS
TO: ____________________
____________________
____________________
GREETINGS:
You are hereby required, within ten (10) days from receipt of this
Summons, to file with this Court and serve on plaintiff, your verified
Response
to the attached Statement of Claim. The form of the required
Response is
attached hereto.
You are required to submit with your Response copies of documents as
well as affidavits of any witness to stand as your evidence in this case.
You
must present the original documents on the day of the hearing.
A motion to dismiss is prohibited and shall not be entertained.
Your failure to respond within the 10-day period will authorize the
Court
to render judgment based solely on the Statement of Claim.
Witness my hand under the seal of this Court, this ____ day of
______,
20____, at _____________________, Philippines.
BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

FORM 3-SCC
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
_______________________________
_______________________________
_______________________________
__________________________,
Plaintiff,
vs. Civil Case No. ______________
For: _______________________
__________________________,
Defendant.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
RESPONSE
Defendant/s respectfully allege/s:
1. Defendant admits all the allegations in paragraph/s ________ of the
Statement of Claim.
2. Defendant specifically denies all the allegations in paragraphs
________ of the Statement of Claim.
3. Defendant opposes the grant of the prayer in the Statement of
Claim
JBD 77
for the following reasons, as supported by the attached documents and
affidavits:
(enumerate defenses)
4. As the Statement of Claim is baseless, defendant is entitled to the
following counterclaims:
_____ Actual Damages of P______________________
_____ Moral Damages of P______________________
_____ Exemplary Damages of P_____________________
_____ Costs of suit
Prayer
WHEREFORE, defendant respectfully prays for judgment to be
rendered
dismissing the Statement of Claim, and granting the counterclaims,
ordering
plaintiff to pay defendant the following sums:
_____ Actual Damages of P______________________
_____ Moral Damages of P______________________
_____ Exemplary Damages of P_____________________
_____ Costs of suit
DEFENDANT
(VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION
OF NON- FORUM SHOPPING, if with permissive counterclaim)

FORM 4-SCC
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
_______________________________
_______________________________
_______________________________
__________________________,
Plaintiff,
vs. Civil Case No. ______________
For: _______________________
__________________________,
Defendant.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
NOTICE OF HEARING
Once issues are joined upon the filing of the defendant’s Response,
this
case will be called for Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) and hearing
before
the Presiding Judge of this Court on __________________ at
___________.
Failure of the plaintiff to appear at the JDR and hearing shall cause the
dismissal of the Statement of Claim, and the defendant who appears
shall be

JBD 78
entitled to a judgment on his counterclaim. On the other hand, failure
of the
defendant to appear at the JDR and hearing shall cause the Court to
render
judgment based solely on the Statement of Claim.
A party may not be represented by a lawyer, but may authorize any
other
representative to appear in his behalf and participate in all the
proceedings as
if the party represented were present. For this purpose, the required
authority
should be evidenced by accomplishing the attached Form 5-SCC
(Special Power
of Attorney).
WITNESS the HON. _________________________, Presiding Judge
of this Court, this ____ day of _____________, 20___, at
__________________________, Philippines.
BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

FORM 5-SCC
SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
I, _______________________, of legal age, single/married, with
residence at ___________________________ do hereby appoint,
name and
constitute ________________________________, likewise of legal
age, singe/
married, with residence at ________________________________ as
my true
and legal representative to act for and in my name and stead and to
represent
me during the hearing of Civil Case No. __________, to enter into
amicable
settlement, to submit to alternative modes of dispute resolution and to
make
admissions or stipulations of facts and documents without further
consultation
from me.
I hereby grant my representative full power and authority to execute
and
perform every act necessary to render effective the power to
compromise as
though I myself have so performed it and hereby approving all that he
may do
by virtue of these presents.
JBD 79
In witness whereof, I hereunto set my hand this ______ day of
____________________, 20_______, at ________________.
_____________________________
Principal
_____________________
Agent
Witnesses: ________________________
___________________________
(ACKNOWLEDGMENT)

FORM 6-SCC
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
__________________________,
Plaintiff,
vs. Civil Case No. ______________
For: _______________________
__________________________,
Defendant.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
MOTION TO PLEAD AS INDIGENT
_____________________, unto this Honorable Court, respectfully
alleges
that:
1. I am a resident of ___________________;
2. My gross income and that of my immediate family does not exceed
__________________ ;
3. I do not own real property with an assessed value of more than
(amount
as provided in the Revised Rules of Court, as amended) as shown by
the attached
Certification issued by the Office of the City/Municipal Assessor and the
City/
Municipal Treasurer’s Office;
4. Due to financial constraint, I cannot afford to pay for the expenses
of
a court litigation as I do not have enough funds for food, shelter and
other
basic necessities;
5. Should the court render judgment in my favor, the amount of the
docket
and other legal fees which I was exempted from paying shall be a lien
on the
JBD 80
judgment, unless the court orders otherwise.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that I be
exempted from the payment of docket and other legal fees as indigent
pursuant
to Section 21, Rule 3 in relation to Section 18, Rule 141 of the Revised
Rules
of Court.
Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed
for.
PLAINTIFF

FORM 7-SCC
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
_______________________________
_______________________________
_______________________________
__________________________,
Plaintiff,
vs. Civil Case No. ______________
For: _______________________
__________________________,
Defendant.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF COMPROMISE AGREEMENT
The parties respectfully allege that:
1. Plaintiff filed this claim against defendant for:
_____________ collection of sum of money
_____________ damages
_____________ civil aspect of criminal case
_____________ enforcement of barangay agreement
_____________ recovery of personal property
2. The parties have come to an amicable settlement and have
executed a
compromise agreement with the following terms and conditions.
(copy terms and condition here)
3. The parties agree that the approval of this agreement by the Court
shall put an end to this litigation, except for purposes of execution in
case of
default.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the parties respectfully pray that
the court approve this agreement and render judgment on the basis
thereof.
_______________________________________, 20_______.
_______________________ ________________________
Plaintiff Defendant

JBD 81
FORM 8-SCC
(Motion for voluntary dismissal of the claim and counterclaim)
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
_______________________________
_______________________________
_______________________________
__________________________,
Plaintiff,
vs. Civil Case No. ______________
For: _______________________
__________________________,
Defendant.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
JOINT MOTION
Plaintiff and defendant, unto this Honorable Court, respectfully allege
that:
1. Plaintiff and defendant have mutually and voluntarily settled their
claim and counterclaim to the entire satisfaction of each other; and
2. The parties no longer have a cause of action against each other.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, plaintiff and defendant
respectfully pray that the plaintiff’s statement of claim and defendant’s
counterclaim incorporated in his response be dismissed.
Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed
for.
_______________________________________, 20_______.
_____________________________
____________________________
Plaintiff Defendant
To the Branch Clerk of Court:
Please submit the foregoing motion for the consideration of the Court
without hearing and further argument from the parties.
__________________________ _________________________
Plaintiff Defendant

FORM 9-SCC
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
_______________________________
_______________________________
_______________________________
__________________________,
Plaintiff,
vs. Civil Case No. ______________
For: _______________________
__________________________,
JBD 82
Defendant.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
MOTION FOR EXECUTION
Plaintiff/Defendant, unto this Honorable Court, respectfully alleges
that:
1. On _______________, a judgment was rendered by the Court, the
dispositive portion of which reads:
2. The judgment is final and unappealable.
3. The defendant/plaintiff has not complied with the judgment.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that a
writ of execution be issued to implement the judgment of the Court
dated
__________________.
_______________________________________, 20_______.
_____________________________
Plaintiff/Defendant
NOTICE OF HEARING
NAME OF DEFENDANT
(IF FILED BY PLAINTIFF)
NAME OF PLAINTIFF
(IF FILED BY DEFENDANT)
NAME OF CLERK OF COURT.
Please be notified that the undersigned will submit the foregoing
motion
for the consideration and approval of the Court on
_________________ at
_______________________________________, 20_______.
________________________
Plaintiff/Defendant

FORM 10-SCC
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
_______________________________
_______________________________
_______________________________
__________________________,
Plaintiff,
vs. Civil Case No. ______________
For: _______________________
__________________________,
Defendant.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
AGREEMENT
Having failed to resolve the matter through Judicial Dispute Resolution,

JBD 83
plaintiff and defendant hereby agree that Judge _________________
shall
continue with the hearing on the instant matter and hereby waive their
right to
have a different judge hear the case.
_______________________________________, 20_______.
___________________________ _______________________
Plaintiff Defendant

FORM 11-SCC
(Referral to pairing judge)
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
_______________________________
_______________________________
_______________________________
__________________________,
Plaintiff,
vs. Civil Case No. ______________
For: _______________________
__________________________,
Defendant.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
ORDER
In view of the failure of judicial dispute resolution and there being no
agreement from the parties to let the undersigned continue hearing
the instant
case, the record of this case is transmitted to the Office of the Clerk of
Court
for immediate referral by the Executive Judge to the Pairing Judge for
hearing
and decision pursuant to Section 21 of the Rule of Procedure for Small
Claims
Cases.
SO ORDERED.
_______________________________________, 20_______.
______________________________
JUDGE

FORM 12-SCC
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
_______________________________
_______________________________
_______________________________
__________________________,
JBD 84
Plaintiff,
vs. Civil Case No. ______________
For: _______________________
__________________________,
Defendant.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
DECISION BASED ON COMPROMISE AGREEMENT
Plaintiff filed this case against defendant for _____________________
in the amount of ________________________.
Defendant denied plaintiff’s claim on the ground of
_________________
and set up a counterclaim for _______________________.
The parties, however, reached an amicable settlement and submitted
to
the court a compromise agreement, the terms and conditions of which
are as
follows:
It appearing that the agreement is not contrary to law, morals, good
customs, public moral and public policy, and pursuant to Articles 2028
and
2037 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the same is hereby
APPROVED and
ADOPTED as the Decision of this court.
The parties are hereby ordered to faithfully comply with the terms and
conditions of the agreement.
_______________________________________, 20_______.
________________________
JUDGE

FORM 13 – SCC
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
_______________________________
_______________________________
_______________________________
__________________________,
Plaintiff,
vs. Civil Case No. ______________
For: _______________________
__________________________,
Defendant.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
DECISION
This is a small claims action for (state which of the claims or demands
below is the subject of the action filed):
[For money owed under any of the following:
JBD 85
1. Contract of lease;
2. Contract of loan;
3. Contract of services;
4. Contract of sale; or
5. Contract of mortgage;
For damages arising from:
1. Fault or negligence;
2. Quasi-contract; or
3. Contract;
The enforcement of a barangay amicable settlement or an
arbitration award involving a money claim covered by this Rule
pursuant to Section 417 of Republic Act 7160, otherwise known as
The Local Government Code of 1991].
Plaintiff alleges that (state material allegations and prayer in the
Statement
of Claim).
Defendant alleges that (state reasons for denial of the claim and other
material allegations in the Response including counterclaims, if any).
On (date), both parties appeared during the hearing conducted by
(state
name of Judge who conducted the JDR. State whether parties
appeared
personally or through a specially authorized representative).
Considering the failure of the parties to arrive at any settlement of the
dispute, this court proceeded with the hearing of the case which was
terminated
on __________________.
The issue to be resolved by this court is whether
________________________________________________________
_____.
Plaintiff’s evidence consists of: (state documents of plaintiff, affidavits
submitted, if any, and statements made by plaintiff and witnesses
under oath
during the hearing).
Defendant’s evidence consists of: (state documents of defendant,
affidavits submitted, if any, and statements made by defendant and
witnesses
under oath during the hearing).
This court finds that the claim of plaintiff (or defendant in a
counterclaim)
is (state whether meritorious or devoid of merit) under Article/Section
(state
the applicable provisions of law) or pursuant to established
jurisprudence (cite
applicable jurisprudence). In this case, this court found that (state first
the
JBD 86
factual findings established by the evidence and then the legal
conclusions).
Wherefore, the (claim/counterclaim) is (granted/denied). This court
orders ____________________ to pay to
_______________________ the
amount of (state the monetary award or damages) with interest of (if
applicable
under Civil Code and/or settled jurisprudence) until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
(Date of decision.)
(Signature)
Presiding Judge
(or Pairing Judge in the absence
of written agreement of the
parties that the case shall be
heard by the Presiding Judge
who conducted the JDR)
Copy furnished:
All parties
Office of the Clerk of Court of ____________

RATIONALE
of the
Proposed Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases
A. Introduction
The most significant recurring theme of every program for
judicial reform of the Supreme Court is the pressing need for a more
accessible, much swifter and less expensive delivery of justice.
Undeniably, the slow grind of the wheels of justice is the result of
a variety of factors, foremost of which is the perennial congestion
of court dockets which has transformed court litigation into a
protracted battle, that invariably exhausts the time, effort and
resources of party-litigants, especially the poor. Many strategies
have been devised to unclog heavy court dockets, and one such
approach is the use of mandatory Pre-trial and Alternative Dispute
Resolution mechanisms such as mediation, arbitration and
conciliation. Another scheme that has been widely used in many
foreign legal systems but which has yet to be tried in the Philippines
is the small claims case processing method used by small claims
courts, often referred to as the “People’s Court,” as it comes most
directly into contact with the citizenry of a jurisdiction.
Small claims courts are courts of limited jurisdiction that hear
civil cases between private litigants. Courts authorized to try small
claims may also have other judicial functions, and the name by
which such a court is known varies by jurisdiction: it may be known
JBD 87
by such names as county court or magistrate’s court. Small claims
courts can be found in Australia, Canada, Ireland, Israel, New
Zealand, South Africa, Hong Kong, Singapore, the United Kingdom
and the United States.
29

B. The History and the Reforms of Small Claims Court

1. In the United States1
For almost a century now, small claims courts have provided
a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in the United States.
Originating around 1912 or 1913, these courts were established
primarily as a means for small businesses to collect money from
borrowers through a process that was faster, less formal, and less
expensive than traditional civil litigation.
Following the lead of the establishment of the initial small
claims court in Kansas, USA in 1912 or 1913, every state in the
United States has created some form of a small claims court system.
Although the financial claims limits, methods of procedure, and
overall structure vary from state to state, the concept is essentially
the same, i.e., that relatively minor disputes, involving dollar amounts
that are insufficient to warrant processing the case through the
normal court procedure, justify expeditious and simplified handling.
The consumer justice reform movements of the 1960s and
1970s brought renewed research and interest in the small claims
courts. This movement emphasized the need for reform of small
claims courts to facilitate the adjudication of consumer grievances.
Although “consumer justice reformers” were concerned that
businesses and corporations were more likely to use attorneys in
small claims courts thereby placing inexperienced individual
defendants at a disadvantage, studies showed that defendants with
an attorney were more likely to win against plaintiffs than
unrepresented defendants, whereas plaintiffs without attorneys did
just as well as represented plaintiffs against unrepresented
defendants.
The result was an appraisal of the need to bar attorneys and
collection agencies from the small claims courts.
Small claims courts in the United States are often considered
courts of equity and are not necessarily bound by the letter of the
law. These courts have flexibility to use more holistic approaches
to problem solving and dispute resolution than what is typical.
Most judges act according to what makes sense to them, even if this
means setting aside legal formalities. Moreover, traditional rules of
evidence and court processes do not apply. The rules of small
claims courts emphasize conciliation and pragmatism over winning,
and rules of evidence and civil procedure have been simplified to
allow maximum access to the courts by individuals unable to afford
JBD 88
an attorney.
2. Small Claims Courts in Canada2
All provinces in Canada have procedures for small claims. In
general, there are two different models. In most provinces, as in
British Columbia, Alberta, and new Brunswick, small claims courts
operate independently of the superior courts. In other jurisdictions,
the small claims courts are either branches or divisions of the superior
courts
The small claims courts are meant to be an easier and less
expensive way to resolve disputes than in the superior courts. Small
Claims Court procedure is regulated both by provincial legislation
and rules in most provinces. It is simplified and less costly with no
strict pleading requirements and formal discovery process.
3. Small Claims Courts in England and Wales3
From early times, England had a tradition of local courts
where ordinary men could pursue justice in the form of civil claims
without the aid of lawyers. Some were set up by local statutes,
others by custom. These local courts could not keep pace with the
changes in society brought about by the Industrial Revolution. By
the 1830s, the decade of great liberal reform, there was a great
public awakening to the urgent need for constitutional reform in the
administration of justice. The result was the County Courts Act of
1846, described in its preamble as an “Act For The More Easy
Recovery of Small Debts and Demands in England.” It was initially
a poor man’s court. Andrew Amos, the first judge at Marylebone
County, described regular litigants as being “a great proportion of
the poorer classes, gaining their livelihoods by bricklaying, gardening
or other out of door occupations and who subsist upon credit in the
winter months, and complaints against whom are usually issued in
the summer months.” The county court’s jurisdiction for claims
brought in contract and tort gradually increased from £50 in 1888
to £5,000 in 1984.
The purpose and structure of the county court system has in
many ways remained the same since 1846. The aim is still to make
civil justice available locally – there are now 223 county courts in
England and Wales. They have continued to be responsive to the
needs of smaller cases which, although small in terms of their
financial value, are important to the litigants involved. However,
recent decades have seen two major changes in relation to small
claims – first, the introduction of a dedicated small claims procedure
in 1973 and secondly, the introduction of the Civil Procedure Rules
reforms of 1998 with emphasis on proportionality.
Since January 1996, when the small claims limit in England
and Wales was trebled overnight to £3,000, district judges have
been expected to play the role of “interventionist” and assist litigants
in presenting their own cases personally at small claims hearings.
JBD 89
Like adjudicators in other parts of the world, district judges in these
countries have been encouraged to intervene to an increasing extent
at small claims hearings. Such interventionism is, indeed, vital and
although there may be wide variations between jurisdictions in the
methods that are adopted to deal with small claims, the idea of the
adjudicator freely entering the arena of the dispute to assist
unrepresented litigants is fundamental in almost all matters about
small claims.
4. Small Claims Tribunals in Singapore5
The Small Claims Tribunals in Singapore have been in operation
since 1 February 1985. The Tribunals have fulfilled an integral role
in providing the community with accessible justice for civil claims
involving small amounts. Various features and programs have been
put in place to enhance access to justice for the community, by
removing barriers such as cost, delay, distance, time and
inconvenience. The Tribunals, constituted as part of the Subordinate
Courts of Singapore, were established for the primary purpose of
providing a quick and inexpensive avenue for the resolution of small
claims arising from disputes between consumers and suppliers. There
was a need for a less expensive and less formal forum to deal with
such small claims. Hence, in 1985, the Small Claims Tribunals Act
was passed, which authorized the setting up of one or more Tribunals
to help consumers who have claims of up to $2,000 relating to
disputes arising from contracts for the sale of goods or the provision
of services.

JBD 90