EN BANC should, thus, be heard by the designated Special Commercial Court of
Muntinlupa City.13
G.R. No. 202664, November 20, 2015
MANUEL LUIS C. GONZALES AND FRANCIS MARTIN D.
GONZALES, Petitioners, v. GJH LAND, INC. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS
S.J. LAND, INC.), CHANG HWAN JANG A.K.A. STEVE JANG, SANG
RAK KIM, MARIECHU N. YAP, AND ATTY. ROBERTO P. MALLARI
II, Respondent.
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
This is a direct recourse to the Court, via a petition for review
on certiorari,1 from the Orders dated April 17, 20122 and July 9, 20123 of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Muntinlupa City, Branch 276 (Branch 276)
dismissing Civil Case No. 11-077 for lack of jurisdiction.
The Facts
On August 4, 2011, petitioners Manuel Luis C. Gonzales4 and Francis Martin
D. Gonzales (petitioners) filed a Complaint5 for "Injunction with prayer for
Issuance of Status Quo Order, Three (3) and Twenty (20)-Day Temporary
Restraining Orders, and Writ of Preliminary Injunction with Damages"
against respondents GJH Land, Inc. (formerly known as S.J. Land, Inc.),
Chang Hwan Jang, Sang Rak Kim, Mariechu N. Yap, and Atty. Roberto P.
Mallari II6 (respondents) before the RTC of Muntinlupa City seeking to
enjoin the sale of S.J. Land, Inc.'s shares which they purportedly bought
from S.J. Global, Inc. on February 1, 2010. Essentially, petitioners alleged
that the subscriptions for the said shares were already paid by them in full
in the books of S.J. Land, Inc.,7 but were nonetheless offered for sale on
July 29, 2011 to the corporation's stockholders,8 hence, their plea for
injunction.
The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 11-077 and raffled to Branch
276, which is not a Special Commercial Court. On August 9, 2011,
said branch issued a temporary restraining order,9 and later, in an
Order10 dated August 24, 2011, granted the application for a writ of
preliminary injunction.
After filing their respective answers11 to the complaint, respondents filed a
motion to dismiss12 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject
matter, pointing out that the case involves an intra-corporate dispute and
The RTC Ruling
In an Order14 dated April 17, 2012, Branch 276 granted the motion to
dismiss filed by respondents. It found that the case involves an intra-
corporate dispute that is within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the
RTCs designated as Special Commercial Courts. It pointed out that the RTC
of Muntinlupa City, Branch 256 (Branch 256) was specifically designated by
the Court as the Special Commercial Court, hence, Branch 276 had no
jurisdiction over the case and cannot lawfully exercise jurisdiction on the
matter, including the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary
Injunction.15 Accordingly, it dismissed the case.
Dissatisfied, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration,16 arguing that
they filed the case with the Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC of
Muntinlupa City which assigned the same to Branch 276 by raffle.17 As the
raffle was beyond their control, they should not be made to suffer the
consequences of the wrong assignment of the case, especially after paying
the filing fees in the amount of P235,825.00 that would be for naught if the
dismissal is upheld.18 They further maintained that the RTC has jurisdiction
over intra-corporate disputes under Republic Act No. (RA) 8799,19 but since
the Court selected specific branches to hear and decide such suits, the case
must, at most, be transferred or raffled off to the proper branch.20
In an Order21 dated July 9, 2012, Branch 276 denied the motion for
reconsideration, holding that it has no authority or power to order the
transfer of the case to the proper Special Commercial Court, citing Calleja
v. Panday22 (Calleja); hence, the present petition.
The Issue Before the Court
The essential issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not Branch 276
of the RTC of Muntinlupa City erred in dismissing the case for lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter.
The Court's Ruling
The petition is meritorious.
At the outset, the Court finds Branch 276 to have correctly categorized
Civil Case No. 11-077 as a commercial case, more particularly, an intra-
corporate dispute,23 considering that it relates to petitioners' averred rights
over the shares of stock offered for sale to other stockholders, having paid
the same in full. Applying the relationship test and the nature of the
controversy test, the suit between the parties is clearly rooted in the
existence of an intra-corporate relationship and pertains to the
enforcement of their correlative rights and obligations under the
Corporation Code and the internal and intra-corporate regulatory rules of
the corporation,24 hence, intra-corporate, which should be heard by the
designated Special Commercial Court as provided under A.M. No. 03-03-
03-SC25 dated June 17, 2003 in relation to Item 5.2, Section 5 of RA 8799.
The present controversy lies, however, in the procedure to be
followed when a commercial case - such as the instant intra-
corporate dispute -has been properly filed in the official station of
the designated Special Commercial Court but is, however, later
wrongly assigned by raffle to a regular branch of that station.
As a basic premise, let it be emphasized that a court's acquisition of
jurisdiction over a particular case's subject matter is different from
incidents pertaining to the exercise of its jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over the
subject matter of a case is conferred by law, whereas a court's exercise
of jurisdiction, unless provided by the law itself, is governed by the Rules
of Court or by the orders issued from time to time by the
Court.26 In Lozada v. Bracewell,27 it was recently held that the matter of
whether the RTC resolves an issue in the exercise of its general
jurisdiction or of its limited jurisdiction as a special court is only a
matter of procedure and has nothing to do with the question of
jurisdiction.
Pertinent to this case is RA 8799 which took effect on August 8, 2000. By
virtue of said law, jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 528 of
Presidential Decree No. 902-A29 was transferred from the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) to the RTCs, being courts of general
jurisdiction. Item 5.2, Section 5 of RA 8799
provides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
SEC. 5. Powers and Functionsof the Commission. - x x x
xxxx
5.2 The Commission's jurisdiction over all cases enumerated under
Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 902-A is hereby transferred to
the Courts of general jurisdiction or the appropriate Regional Trial
Court: Provided, that the Supreme Court in the exercise of its
authority may designate the Regional Trial Court branches that
shall exercise jurisdiction over the cases. The Commission shall retain
jurisdiction over pending cases involving intra-corporate disputes submitted
for final resolution which should be resolved within one (1) year from the
enactment of this Code. The Commission shall retain jurisdiction over
pending suspension of payments/rehabilitation cases filed as of 30 June
2000 until finally disposed. (Emphasis supplied)cralawlawlibrary
The legal attribution of Regional Trial Courts as courts of general
jurisdiction stems from Section 19 (6), Chapter II of Batas Pambansa
Bilang (BP) 129,30 known as "The Judiciary Reorganization Act of
1980":chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Section 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases.- Regional Trial Courts shall exercise
exclusive original jurisdiction:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
xxxx
(6) In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal,
person or body exercising jurisdiction or any court, tribunal, person or body
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; x x x x
cralawlawlibrary
As enunciated in Durisol Philippines, Inc. v.
CA:31chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The regional trial court, formerly the court of first instance, is a court of
general jurisdiction. All cases, the jurisdiction over which is not specifically
provided for by law to be within the jurisdiction of any other court, fall
under the jurisdiction of the regional trial
court.32ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
cralawlawlibrary
To clarify, the word "or" in Item 5.2, Section 5 of RA 8799 was intentionally
used by the legislature to particularize the fact that the phrase "the Courts
of general jurisdiction" is equivalent to the phrase "the appropriate
Regional Trial Court." In other words, the jurisdiction of the SEC over the
cases enumerated under Section 5 of PD 902-A was transferred to the
courts of general jurisdiction, that is to say (or, otherwise known as), the
proper Regional Trial Courts. This interpretation is supported by San Miguel
Corp. v. Municipal Council,33 wherein the Court held
that:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
[T]he word "or" may be used as the equivalent of "that is to say" and gives
that which precedes it the same significance as that which follows it. It is
not always disjunctive and is sometimes interpretative or expository of the
preceding word.34cralawlawlibrary
Further, as may be gleaned from the following excerpt of the Congressional
deliberations:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Senator [Raul S.] Roco: x x x.
xxxx
x x x. The first major departure is as regards the Securities and Exchange
Commission. The Securities and Exchange Commission has been
authorized under this proposal to reorganize itself. As an administrative
agency, we strengthened it and at the same time we take away the quasi-
judicial functions. The quasi-judicial functions are now given back to
the courts of general jurisdiction - the Regional Trial Court, except
for two categories of cases.
In the case of corporate disputes, only those that are now submitted for
final determination of the SEC will remain with the SEC. So, all those cases,
both memos of the plaintiff and the defendant, that have been submitted
for resolution will continue. At the same time, cases involving
rehabilitation, bankruptcy, suspension of payments and receiverships that
were filed before June 30, 2000 will continue with the SEC. in other words,
we are avoiding the possibility, upon approval of this bill, of people filing
cases with the SEC, in manner of speaking, to select their court.35
x x x x (Emphasis supplied)cralawlawlibrary
Therefore, one must be disabused of the notion that the transfer of
jurisdiction was made only in favor of particular RTC branches, and not the
RTCs in general.
Consistent with the foregoing, history depicts that when the transfer of SEC
cases to the RTCs was first implemented, they were transmitted to the
Executive Judges of the RTCs for raffle between or among its different
branches, unless a specific branch has been designated as a Special
Commercial Court, in which instance, the cases were transmitted to
said branch.36 It was only on November 21, 2000 that the Court
designated certain RTC branches to try and decide said SEC
cases37 without, however, providing for the transfer of the cases already
distributed to or filed with the regular branches thereof. Thus, on January
23, 2001, the Court issued SC Administrative Circular No. 08-
200138 directing the transfer of said cases to the designated courts
(commercial SEC courts). Later, or on June 17, 2003, the Court issued A.M.
No. 03-03-03-SC consolidating the commercial SEC courts and the
intellectual property courts39 in one RTC branch in a particular locality,
i.e., the Special Commercial Court, to streamline the court structure
and to promote expediency.40 Accordingly, the RTC branch so
designated was mandated to try and decide SEC cases, as well as those
involving violations of intellectual property rights, which were, thereupon,
required to be filed in the Office of the Clerk of Court in the official
station of the designated Special Commercial Courts, to
wit:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
1. The Regional Courts previously designated as SEC Courts through the:
(a) Resolutions of this Court dated 21 November 2000, 4 July 2001, 12
November 2002, and 9 July 2002 all issued in A.M. No. 00-11-03-SC; (b)
Resolution dated 27 August 2001 in A.M. No. 01-5-298-RTC; and (c)
Resolution dated 8 July 2002 in A.M. No. 01-12-656-RTC are hereby
DESIGNATED and shall be CALLED as Special Commercial Courts to try and
decide cases involving violations of Intellectual Property Rights which fall
within their jurisdiction and those cases formerly cognizable by the
Securities and Exchange Commission:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
xxxx
4. The Special Commercial Courts shall have jurisdiction over cases arising
within their respective territorial jurisdiction with respect to the National
Capital Judicial Region and within the respective provinces with respect to
the First to Twelfth Judicial Regions. Thus, cases shall be filed in the Office
of the Clerk of Court in the official station of the designated Special
Commercial Court;41
x x x x (Underscoring supplied)cralawlawlibrary
It is important to mention that the Court's designation of Special
Commercial Courts was made in line with its constitutional authority to
supervise the administration of all courts as provided under Section 6,
Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Section 6. The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over
all courts and the personnel thereof.cralawlawlibrary
The objective behind the designation of such specialized courts is to
promote expediency and efficiency in the exercise of the RTCs'
jurisdiction over the cases enumerated under Section 5 of PD 902-A.
Such designation has nothing to do with the statutory conferment of
jurisdiction to all RTCs under RA 8799 since in the first place, the Court
cannot enlarge, diminish, or dictate when jurisdiction shall be
removed, given that the power to define, prescribe, and apportion
jurisdiction is, as a general rule, a matter of legislative
prerogative.42 Section 2, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution
provides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe, and
apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts but may not deprive the
Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5
hereof.
xxxx
cralawlawlibrary

Here, petitioners filed a commercial case, i.e., an intra-corporate dispute,
with the Office of the Clerk of Court in the RTC of Muntinlupa City, which is
the official station of the designated Special Commercial Court, in
accordance with A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC. It is, therefore, from the time
of such filing that the RTC of Muntinlupa City acquired jurisdiction
over the subject matter or the nature of the
action.43 Unfortunately, the commercial case was wrongly raffled to a
regular branch, e.g., Branch 276, instead of being assigned44to the
sole Special Commercial Court in the RTC of Muntinlupa City, which
is Branch 256. This error may have been caused by a reliance on the
complaint's caption, i.e., "Civil Case for Injunction with prayer for Status
Quo Order, TRO and Damages,"45 which, however, contradicts and more
importantly, cannot prevail over its actual allegations that clearly make out
an intra-corporate dispute:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
16. To the surprise of MLCG and FMDG, however, in two identical letters
both dated 13 May 2011, under the letterhead of GJH Land, Inc., Yap, now
acting as its President, Jang and Kim demanded payment of supposed
unpaid subscriptions of MLCG and FMDG amounting to P10,899,854.30 and
P2,625,249.41, respectively.
16.1 Copies of the letters dated 13 May 2011 are attached hereto and
made integral parts hereof as Annexes "J" and "K", repectively.
17. On 29 July 2011, MLCG and FMDG received an Offer Letter addressed
to stockholders of GJH Land, Inc. from Yap informing all stockholders that
GJH Land, Inc. is now offering for sale the unpaid shares of stock of MLCG
and FMDG. The same letter states that the offers to purchase these shares
will be opened on 10 August 2011 with payments to be arranged by
deposit to the depository bank of GJH Land, Inc.
17.1 A copy of the undated Offer Letter is attached hereto and made and
made an integral part hereof as Annex "L".
18. The letter of GJH Land, Inc. through Yap, is totally without legal and
factual basis because as evidenced by the Deeds of Assignment signed and
certified by Yap herself, all the S.J. Land, Inc. shares acquired by MLCG
and FMDG have been fully paid in the books of S.J. Land, Inc.
19. With the impending sale of the alleged unpaid subscriptions on 10
August 2011, there is now a clear danger that MLCG and FMDG
would be deprived of these shares without legal and factual basis.
20. Furthermore, if they are deprived of these shares through the
scheduled sale, both MLCG and FMDG would suffer grave and irreparable
damage incapable of pecuniary estimation.
21. For this reason, plaintiffs now come to the Honorable Court for
injunctive relief so that after trial on the merits, a permanent injunction
should be issued against the defendants preventing them from selling the
shares of the plaintiffs, there being no basis for such sale.46cralawlawlibrary
According to jurisprudence, "it is not the caption but the allegations in the
complaint or other initiatory pleading which give meaning to the pleading
and on the basis of which such pleading may be legally
characterized."47 However, so as to avert any future confusion, the Court
requires henceforth, that all initiatory pleadings state the action's nature
both in its caption and the body, which parameters are defined in the
dispositive portion of this Decision.
Going back to the case at bar, the Court nonetheless deems that the
erroneous raffling to a regular branch instead of to a Special Commercial
Court is only a matter of procedure - that is, an incident related to the
exercise of jurisdiction - and, thus, should not negate the jurisdiction which
the RTC of Muntinlupa City had already acquired. In such a scenario, the
proper course of action was not for the commercial case to be dismissed;
instead, Branch 276 should have first referred the case to the Executive
Judge for re-docketing as a commercial case; thereafter, the
Executive Judge should then assign said case to the only
designated Special Commercial Court in the station, i.e.,Branch
256.
Note that the procedure would be different where the RTC acquiring
jurisdiction over the case has multiple special commercial court
branches; in such a scenario, the Executive Judge, after re-docketing the
same as a commercial case, should proceed to order its re-raffling
among the said special branches.
Meanwhile, if the RTC acquiring jurisdiction has no branch designated as
a Special Commercial Court, then it should refer the case to the nearest
RTC with a designated Special Commercial Court branch within the judicial
region.48 Upon referral, the RTC to which the case was referred to should
re-docket the case as a commercial case, and then: (a) if the said RTC has
only one branch designated as a Special Commercial Court, assign the case
to the sole special branch; or (b) if the said RTC has multiple branches
designated as Special Commercial Courts, raffle off the case among those
special branches.
In all the above-mentioned scenarios, any difference regarding the
applicable docket fees should be duly accounted for. On the other hand, all
docket fees already paid shall be duly credited, and any excess, refunded.
At this juncture, the Court finds it fitting to clarify that the RTC mistakenly
relied on the Calleja case to support its ruling. In Calleja, an intra-
corporate dispute49 among officers of a private corporation with principal
address at Goa, Camarines Sur, was filed with the RTC of San Jose,
Camarines Sur, Branch 58 instead of the RTC of Naga City, which is the
official station of the designated Special Commercial Court for Camarines
Sur. Consequently, the Court set aside the RTC of San Jose, Camarines
Sur's order to transfer the case to the RTC of Naga City and dismissed the
complaint considering that it was filed before a court which, having no
internal branch designated as a Special Commercial Court, had no
jurisdiction over those kinds of actions, i.e., intra-corporate
disputes. Calleja involved two different RTCs, i.e., the RTC of San Jose,
Camarines Sur and the RTC of Naga City, whereas the instant case only
involves one RTC, i.e., the RTC of Muntinlupa City, albeit involving two
different branches of the same court, i.e.,Branches 256 and 276. Hence,
owing to the variance in the facts attending, it was then improper for the
RTC to rely on the Calleja ruling.
Besides, the Court observes that the fine line that distinguishes subject
matter jurisdiction and exercise of jurisdiction had been clearly blurred
in Calleja. Harkening back to the statute that had conferred subject matter
jurisdiction, two things are apparently clear: (a) that the SEC's subject
matter jurisdiction over intra-corporate cases under Section 5 of
Presidential Decree No. 902-A was transferred to the Courts of general
jurisdiction, i.e., the appropriate Regional Trial Courts; and (b) the
designated branches of the Regional Trial Court, as per the rules
promulgated by the Supreme Court, shall exercise jurisdiction over such
cases. Item 5.2, Section 5 of RA 8799
provides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
SEC. 5. Powers and Functions of the Commission. - x x x
xxxx
5.2 The Commission's jurisdiction over all cases enumerated under
Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 902-A is hereby transferred to
the Courts of general jurisdiction or the appropriate Regional Trial
Court: Provided, that the Supreme Court in the exercise of its
authority may designate the Regional Trial Court branches that
shall exercise jurisdiction over the cases, x x x.cralawlawlibrary
In contrast, the appropriate jurisprudential reference to this case would
be Tan v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc.,50which involves a criminal complaint for
violation of intellectual property rights filed before the RTC of Cebu City but
was raffled to a regular branch thereof (Branch 21), and not to a Special
Commercial Court. As it turned out, the regular branch subsequently
denied the private complainant's motion to transfer the case to the
designated special court of the same RTC, on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction. The CA reversed the regular branch and, consequently,
ordered the transfer of the case to the designated special court at that time
(Branch 9). The Court, affirming the CA, declared that the RTC had
acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter. In view, however, of the
designation of another court as the Special Commercial Court in the
interim (Branch 11 of the same Cebu City RTC), the Court accordingly
ordered the transfer of the case and the transmittal of the records to said
Special Commercial Court instead.51Similarly, the transfer of the
present intra-corporate dispute from Branch 276 to Branch 256 of
the same RTC of Muntinlupa City, subject to the parameters above-
discussed is proper and will further the purposes stated in A.M. No.
03-03-03-SC of attaining a speedy and efficient administration of
justice.
For further guidance, the Court finds it apt to point out that the same
principles apply to the inverse situation of ordinary civil cases filed
before the proper RTCs but wrongly raffled to its branches
designated as Special Commercial Courts. In such a scenario,
the ordinary civil case should then be referred to the Executive
Judge for re-docketing as an ordinary civil case; thereafter, the
Executive Judge should then order the raffling of the case to all
branches of the same RTC, subject to limitations under existing
internal rules, and the payment of the correct docket fees in case of
any difference. Unlike the limited assignment/raffling of a commercial
case only to branches designated as Special Commercial Courts in the
scenarios stated above, the re-raffling of an ordinary civil case in this
instance to all courts is permissible due to the fact that a particular branch
which has been designated as a Special Commercial Court does not shed
the RTC's general jurisdiction over ordinary civil cases under the
imprimatur of statutory law, i.e., Batas Pambansa Bilang (BP) 129.52To
restate, the designation of Special Commercial Courts was merely intended
as a procedural tool to expedite the resolution of commercial cases in line
with the court's exercise of jurisdiction. This designation was not made
by statute but only by an internal Supreme Court rule under its authority to
promulgate rules governing matters of procedure and its constitutional
mandate to supervise the administration of all courts and the personnel
thereof.53 Certainly, an internal rule promulgated by the Court cannot go
beyond the commanding statute. But as a more fundamental reason, the
designation of Special Commercial Courts is, to stress, merely an incident
related to the court's exercise of jurisdiction, which, as first discussed, is
distinct from the concept of jurisdiction over the subject matter. The RTC's
general jurisdiction over ordinary civil cases is therefore not abdicated by
an internal rule streamlining court procedure.
In fine, Branch 276's dismissal of Civil Case No. 11-077 is set aside and the
transfer of said case to Branch 256, the designated Special Commercial
Court of the same RTC of Muntinlupa City, under the parameters above-
explained, is hereby ordered.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Orders dated April 17, 2012
and July 9, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Muntinlupa City,
Branch 276 in Civil Case No. 11-077 are hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. Civil Case No. 11-077 is REFERRED to the Executive Judge of the rectification. This last procedural rule is prospective in application.
RTC of Muntinlupa City for re-docketing as a commercial case. Thereafter,
the Executive Judge shall ASSIGNsaid case to Branch 256, the sole 5. All existing rules inconsistent with the foregoing are deemed
designated Special Commercial Court in the RTC of Muntinlupa City, which superseded.cralawlawlibrary
is ORDERED to resolve the case with reasonable dispatch. In this regard,
the Clerk of Court of said RTC shall DETERMINE the appropriate amount SO ORDERED.
of docket fees and, in so doing, ORDER the payment of any difference or,
on the other hand, refund any excess.

Furthermore, the Court hereby RESOLVES that henceforth, the following

guidelines shall be observed:
1. If a commercial case filed before the proper RTC is wrongly raffled to its
regular branch, the proper courses of action are as follows:
1.1 If the RTC has only one branch designated as a Special Commercial
Court, then the case shall be referred to the Executive Judge for re-
docketing as a commercial case, and thereafter, assigned to the sole
special branch;

1.2 If the RTC has multiple branches designated as Special Commercial

Courts, then the case shall be referred to the Executive Judge for re-
docketing as a commercial case, and thereafter, raffled off among those
special branches; and

1.3 If the RTC has no internal branch designated as a Special Commercial

Court, then the case shall be referred to the nearest RTC with a designated
Special Commercial Court branch within the judicial region. Upon referral,
the RTC to which the case was referred to should re- docket the case as a
commercial case, and then: (a) if the said RTC has only one branch
designated as a Special Commercial Court, assign the case to the sole
special branch; or (b) if the said RTC has multiple branches designated as
Special Commercial Courts, raffle off the case among those special
branches.
2. If an ordinary civil case filed before the proper RTC is wrongly raffled to
its branch designated as a Special Commercial Court, then the case shall
be referred to the Executive Judge for re-docketing as an ordinary civil
case. Thereafter, it shall be raffled off to all courts of the same RTC
(including its designated special branches which, by statute, are equally
capable of exercising general jurisdiction same as regular branches), as
provided for under existing rules.

3. All transfer/raffle of cases is subject to the payment of the appropriate

docket fees in case of any difference. On the other hand, all docket fees
already paid shall be duly credited, and any excess, refunded.

4. Finally, to avert any future confusion, the Court requires that all
initiatory pleadings state the action's nature both in its caption and body.
Otherwise, the initiatory pleading may, upon motion or by order of the
court motu proprio, be dismissed without prejudice to its re-filing after due