You are on page 1of 2

University of the Philippines College of Law

MSI 2D

Topic II. Jurisdiction > A. General Concepts


Case No. G.R. Nos. 79937-38 February 13, 1989
Case Name SUN INSURANCE V. RTC JUDGE ASUNCION AND PO TIONG
Ponente Gancayco J.

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 AND RATIO DECIDENDI

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

 In the present case, a more liberal interpretation of the rules in is called


for considering that, unlike in Manchester, private respondent
demonstrated his willingness to abide by the rules by paying the
additional docket fees as required.
 In the question that the docket fee that was paid was still insufficient,
the Court ruled that it is a matter which the clerk of the lower court
and/or his duly authorized docket clerk or clerk-in-charge should
determine and thereafter, if any amount is found due, he must require
the private respondent to pay the same. Thus the Court laid out the
following:
o 1. It is not simply the filing of the complaint but the payment
of the prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court with
jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of action. Where
such filing is not accompanied by payment of the docket fee,
the court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable
time but not beyond the prescriptive period.
o 2. Same rule applies to permissive counterclaims, 3rd party
claims and similar pleadings. The court may allow payment of
said fee within a reasonable time but in no case beyond its
applicable prescriptive period or reglementary period.
o 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.

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

You might also like