1. Proton Pilipinas Corp. vs. Banque National de Paris GR No.

151242

PETITIONER: Proton Pilipinas Corporation, Automotive pHilippines, ASea One Corporation and Autocorp
RESPONDENT: Banque Nationale de Paris
DATE: June 15, 2005
PONENTE: J. Carpio Morales
TOPIC:

TYPE OF CASE:
VENUE:
CAUSE OF ACTION: Collection for sum of money, payment of accrued interest and other related charges
RESOLUTION:

Facts:

 That Proton vailed credit facilities of respondent Banque Nationale de Paris (BNP).
 To assure payment, co-petitioners Automotive Corporation etc
o They executed a corporate guarantee
 Proton failed to comply with his obligation to BNP
o Demanded payment of Proton’s obligation to its co-petitioners pursuant to corporate guarantee –
but was not complied to
 BNP filed a complaint to the RTC against Proton and co-petitioners
 Clerk of court assessed the docket fee
 Proton filed a MTD on the ground that the court cannot exercise jurisdiction over the case because BNP did
not properly pay the docket fees
 RT: denied MTD
 CA: denied Proton

Issue: W/N the court does not acquire jurisdiction when there is an improper payment of docket fees, YES
(insufficient payment of docket fees)

Ruling:

The Court that 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 SM 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 reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. It also stated that
where the trail court acquires jurisdiction over a claim by the filing of appropriate pleading and payment of the
prescribed filing fee but, subsequently, the judgment awards a claim not specified in the pleading, or is specified the
same has been left for determination by the court, the additional filing fee therefore shall constitute a lien on
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.

In the case at bar, BNP merely relied on the assessment made by the clerk of court which turned out to be incorrect.
Under the circumstances, the clerk of court has the responsibility of reassessing what respondent must pay within the
prescriptive period, failing which the complaint merits dismissal.

Section 7, Rule 141 excludes interest accruing from the principal amount being claimed in the pleading in the
computation of the prescribed filing fees.
 SC explicitly ruled that where the action is purely for recovery of money damages, the docket fees are
assessed on the basis of the aggregate amount claimed, exclusive only of interests and costs.