Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MSI 2D
RELEVANT FACTS
Petitioner Sun Insurance Office Ltd (SIOL) filed a complained with the Makati RTC for the consignation of
a premium refund on a fire insurance policy with a prayer for judicial declaration of nullity against private
respondent Manuel Uy Po Tiong who was declared in default for failure to file the required answer with
the required period.
Po Tiong filed a complaint in the RTC of Quezon City for the refund of the premiums and the issuance of
a writ of preliminary attachment initially against petitioner SIOL.
o The complaint sought payment for damages to be about P50Mn (complaint did not quantify the
amount of damages sought)
o However, only P210.00 was paid as docket fee, which prompted the objection of SIOL’s counsel
(to be later disregarded by the presiding judge ).
Upon the order of the SC, the records of the case and 22 other cases in the RTC-QC which were under
investigation for under-assessment of docket fees were transmitted. These cases were re-raffled with the
exclusion of Judge Castro.
o The SC then issued an administrative resolution that directed RTC judges to reassess the docket
fees in case of deficiency and order its payment with a requirement that clerks of court to issue
certificates of re-assessment of docket fees, litigants were likewise required to specify in their
pleadings the amount sought to be recovered in their complaints.
After the re-assessment, the claims for damages amounted to P65Mn and the corresponding docket fees
amounted to P183K .
o SOIL allege that while private respondent was able to pay the docket fees, the docket fee that
should be paid should amount to about P258K. Not having paid the total amount of docket fees,
SOIL claim that the complaint should be dismissed taking into account the latest ruling of the
Court in Manchester Development Corporation vs CA which provides that “the Court acquires
jurisdiction over any case ONLY UPON PAYMENT OF THE PRESCRIBED DOCKET FEE. An
amendment of the complaint or similar pleading will not vest jurisdiction in the Court xxx”.
o Po Tiong contends that the ruling on Manchester cannot apply in this case retroactively, hence
this petition.
Issue Ratio
Whether or not the RTC was The contention that Manchester cannot apply retroactively to this case
able to acquire jurisdiction is untenable. Statutes regulating the procedure of the courts will be
over the case on the ground construed as applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the
of non-payment of correct time of their passage. Procedural laws are retrospective in that sense
and proper docket fee. – YES and to that extent.
University of the Philippines College of Law
MSI 2D
RULING
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Clerk of Court of the court a quo is hereby instructed
to reassess and determine the additional filing fee that should be paid by private respondent considering the total
amount of the claim sought in the original complaint and the supplemental complaint as may be gleaned from the
allegations and the prayer thereof and to require private respondent to pay the deficiency, if any, without
pronouncement as to costs.
SEPARATE OPINIONS
NOTES