LEGAL TECHNIQUE:

PAYMENT OF DOCKET FEES

PAYMENT OF DOCKET FEES:

Rule 1, Sec. 5 of the Rules of Court

Sec. 5. Commencement of action. A civil action is commenced by the

filing of the original complaint in court. If an additional defendant is
impleaded in a later pleading, the action is commenced with regard to
him on the date of the filing of such later pleading, irrespective of
whether the motion for its admission, if necessary, is denied by the
court.

 Upon filing of the original complaint in the court and PAYMENT

OF THE DOCKET FEES.

 This is important to determine the exact date that the action has
commenced because it is from that moment the running of the
prescriptive period is interrupted.

CASES ON HOW THE SUPREME COURT RULED ON THE PAYMENT

OF DOCKET FEES:

 Manchester vs. CA as to Sun Insurance vs. Asuncion

 Lacson vs. Reyes as to Pascual vs. CA

G.R. No. 75919 May 7, 1987

MANCHESTER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET
AL., petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, CITY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, STEPHEN ROXAS, ANDREW
LUISON, GRACE LUISON and JOSE DE MAISIP, respondents.

FACTS:

Manchester Development Corporation (Manchester Corp. for

brevity) filed a complaint and paid the docket fee but did not specify
the amount of the damages he was claiming although the body of the
complaint alleges the total amount of over P78 Million as damages
suffered by plaintiff. He contended that he is claiming for moral
damages in such amount as the court will grant. Respondent
contended that it cannot be done. There is a necessity to state the
exact amount of the damages I order to determine the correct amount
of the docket fee. So Manchester Corp. amended the complaint and
paid the balance of the docket fees.

ISSUE:

WON the subsequent amendment cures the defect?

HELD:

NO. The defect is incurable. It well-settled "that a case is

deemed filed only upon payment of the docket fee regardless of the
actual date of filing in court. The trial court did not acquire jurisdiction
over the case by the payment of only P410.00 as docket fee. Neither
can the amendment of the complaint thereby vest jurisdiction upon the
Court. For an legal purposes there is no such original complaint that
was duly filed which could be amended. Consequently, the order
admitting the amended complaint and all subsequent proceedings and
actions taken by the trial court are null and void. 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.
_____________________________________

REASON OF THE COURT FOR RULING:

 The Court observed that the plaintiff clearly wants to avoid

payment of the required docket fees.

“The Court cannot close this case without making the

observation that it frowns at the practice of counsel who
filed the original complaint in this case of omitting any
specification of the amount of damages in the prayer
although the amount of over P78 million is alleged in the
body of the complaint. This is clearly intended for no other
purpose than to evade the payment of the correct filing fees
if not to mislead the docket clerk in the assessment of the
filing fee. This fraudulent practice was compounded when,
even as this Court had taken cognizance of the anomaly
and ordered an investigation, petitioner through another
counsel filed an amended complaint, deleting all mention of
the amount of damages being asked for in the body of the
complaint”

_______________________________
G.R. Nos. 79937-38 February 13, 1989

SUN INSURANCE OFFICE, LTD., (SIOL), E.B. PHILIPPS and D.J.

WARBY, petitioners, vs.
HON. MAXIMIANO C. ASUNCION, Presiding Judge, Branch 104,
Regional Trial Court, Quezon City and MANUEL CHUA UY PO
TIONG, respondents.

FACTS:

Manuel sued Sun Insular. In the body of his complaint, Tiong

claimed damages amounting to Php50 million. But said amount was
not mentioned in his prayer. He paid a docket fee of Php210.00
therefor. At that time, courts in Quezon City were being investigated
by the Supreme Court for under-assessment of docket fees. In 1986,
Judge Maximiano Asuncion ordered Tiong to amend his complaint so
that the proper docket fee may be computed. Tiong complied and in
his amended complaint, the body thereof discussed a damage
amounting to Php44 million but the prayer asked for damages “not
less than Php10 million”.

The clerk of court assessed a docket fee of P39,786.00 which

Tiong paid. Later, Tiong filed a supplemental complaint where he was
asking an additional Php20 million in damages. He later paid an
additional docket fee therefor of Php80,396.00. The same was
admitted by Judge Asuncion. Sun Insurance invoked the ruling
in Manchester Development vs CA where it was ruled that the court
does not acquire jurisdiction over a case if the proper docket fee was
not paid; that the defect cannot be cured by a supplemental complaint
because if the proper docket fee was not paid in the first place, then
there is no original complaint to supplement nor amend.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the court acquired jurisdiction over the foregoing

case considering that the correct and proper docket fee has not been
paid in the first place?

HELD:
Yes. The principle in Manchester could very well be applied in the
present case. The pattern and the intent to defraud the government of
the docket fee due it is obvious not only in the filing of the original
complaint but also in the filing of the second amended complaint.
 However, in Manchester, petitioner did not pay any additional
docket fee until the case was decided by this Court on May 7, 1987.
Thus, in Manchester, due to the fraud committed on the government,
this Court held that the court a quo did not acquire jurisdiction over
the case and that the amended complaint could not have been
admitted inasmuch as the original complaint was null and void.
_______________________________

 The ruling in Manchester was relaxed in this case because Tiong

showed his willingness to pay the additional docket fees unlike in
the case of Manchester where Manchester Development intended
to defraud the government by intentionally omitting the amount
of damages it claimed in the prayer of their complaint.

REASON OF THE COURT FOR RULING:

 The Court observed that there was an innocent mistake

committed by the plaintiff. And upon learning such mistake, the
plaintiff manifests his willingness to immediately pay the required
docket fees.

“A more liberal interpretation of the rules is called for

considering that, unlike Manchester, private respondent
demonstrated his willingness to abide by the rules by
paying the additional docket fees as required. The
promulgation of the decision in Manchester must have had
that sobering influence on private respondent who thus paid
the additional docket fee as ordered by the respondent
court. It triggered his change of stance by manifesting his
willingness to pay such additional docket fee as may be
ordered.”
________________________________

Other Cases: strict construction

Pangcatan v. Maghuyop||| (Manchester Development Corp. v.

Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 75919
Considered pauper litigant by PAO but no other proof of being
indigent, thus he must pay docket fees in order for the court to have
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case.
Bank of Commerce v. Planters Development
Ban||| (Manchester Development Corp. v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 75919

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.

Antonino v. Register of Deeds of Makati City||| (Manchester

Development Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 75919

Non-payment of docket fees coupled with improper venue.

Rizal v. Naredo||| (Manchester Development Corp. v. Court of

Appeals, G.R. No. 75919

Complaint for partition with damages, but Petitioners failed to

specify, both in the prayer and in the body of the complaint, the
specific amounts of the petitioners' claim for actual, moral, exemplary
and compensatory damages.

Other Cases: liberal construction

Villamor, Jr. v. Santos||| (Manchester Development Corp. v.

Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 75919

Disbarment case for alleged dishonesty in not placing the proper

amount of claim in the pleading to avoid payment of higher docket
fees.

Unicapital, Inc. v. Consing, Jr

“Indeed, while the Court acknowledges Unicapital, et al.'s

apprehension that Consing, Jr.'s "metered" claim for damages to the
tune of around P2,000,000.00 per month may balloon to a rather huge
amount by the time that this case is finally disposed of, still, any
amount that may by then fall due shall be subject to assessment and
any additional fees determined shall constitute as a lien against the
judgment as explicitly provided under Section 2, Rule 141 of the
Rules.”
Prepared BY: Michelle Mae Andoy and
Mark Nichol Malinao