Topic: Motion to Dismiss; Consolidation

UNICAPITAL v. CONSING
G.R. No. 175277 & 175285, September 11, 2013, J. Perlas-Bernabe
As a rule, payment of the prescribed docket fee is a jurisdictional requirement. However, its non-
payment at the time of filing does not automatically cause the dismissal of the case, as long as the fee
is paid within the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period, more so when the party involved
demonstrates a willingness to abide by the rules prescribing such payment.
Facts:
G.R. No. 175277 & 175285
In 1997, Rafael Consing, Jr. and his mother, Cecilia dela Cruz, obtained a P12Million loan from
Unicapital, secured by Promissory Notes and a Real Estate Mortgage over a 42,443 sq.m. lot in Imus,
Cavite registered in the name of dela Cruz. Later on, the loan and mortgage was modified into an
Option to Buy Real Property in favor of Unicapital and Plus Builders Inc. (PBI), the latter two having
entered previously into a Joint Venture Agreement. Eventually the property was sold – half to
Unicapital (URI) for P21,221,500, against which Dela Cruz’s loan was offset, and the other half was
sold to PBI for P21,047,000.
Before the titles were transferred to the buyers, Juanito Teng and Po Willie Yu informed
Unicapital that they were the lawful owners of the subject property, and that the title was Dela Cruz
was spurious. PBI and Unicapital sent separate demand letters to Consing and Dela Cruz for the
return of the purchase price they had paid.
On May 3, 1999, Consing filed a Complex Action for Declaratory Relief, which was later
amended to Complex Action for Injunctive Relief against Unicapital, URI, PBI, PBI General Manager
Marani Martinez, Dela Cruz, and several Does.
The Petitioners filed separate Motions to Dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of
action. These Motions were dismissed by the Pasig RTC. The Trial Court ruled that the complaints
sufficiently stated a cause of action for tort and damages pursuant to Art. 19 of the Civil Code. MR was
likewise denied.
On October 20, 2005, the Court of Appeals ruled that no grave abuse of discretion was
committed was the Pasig RTC in refusing to dismiss Consing’s complaint. It ruled that while the
payment of the prescribed docket fee is a jurisdictional requirement, its non-payment will not
automatically cause the dismissal of the case. Should there be any deficiency in such fees, the same
shall constitute a lien on the judgment award. It likewise refused to dismiss the complaint for lack of
proper verification upon a finding that the copy of the amended complaint was properly notarized.

G.R. No. 192073

On August 4, 1999, Unicapital sued Consing and Dela Cruz for collection of a sum of money
and damages before the RTC of Makati. PBI also filed a complaint for damages and attachment against
Consing and Dela Cruz before the RTC of Manila to recover the installments paid.
Consing filed a Motion to Dismiss the Makati case, but such motion was denied. He thereafter
filed a Motion for Consolidation of the Makati case with the one he initiated in the RTC of Pasig. This
Motion for Consolidation was denied on the ground that there was no identity of rights or causes of
action and the reliefs sought by Consing. This resolution was sustained by the Court of Appeals noting
that consolidation is a matter of sound discretion on the part of the trial court which could be gleaned
from the use of the word “may” in Sec. 1, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court.

Issue:
1. Whether or not the case Consing filed before the RTC Pasig should have been dismissed on
the ground of failure to state a cause of action.
 2. Whether or not the case Consing filed before the RTC Pasig should have been dismissed on
the ground of failure to pay the required docket fees.
3. Whether or not the case Consing filed before the RTC Pasig should have been dismissed for
lack of verification.
4. Whether or not the Makati case should have been consolidated with the case pending before
the RTC of Pasig.
Ruling:
1. No. Consing’s complaint properly states a cause of action under Arts. 19 and 26 of the Civil
Code. His complaint contains allegations which aim to demonstrate the abusive manner in which
Unicapital and PBI enforced their demands – harassing phone calls and meetings which cause
Consing to be unable to attend to his work as an investment banker; that he was being forced to issue
a postdated check despite Unicapital and PBI knowing that he did not have the funds to cover the
same. These specific allegations, if hypothetically admitted, may result into the recovery of damages
pursuant to Art. 19 of the Civil Code.
His complaint also alleged that he discovered that Unicapital and PBI were speaking of him
in a manner that is inappropriate and libelous; and that they have spread their virulent version of
events in the business and financial community such that he suffered injury upon his good name and
reputation considering that he is an investment banker. A hypothetical admission of these allegations
could likewise result into a recovery for damages under Art. 26, and even Art. 2210 of the Civil Code.

2. No. As a rule, payment of the prescribed docket fee is a jurisdictional requirement. However,
its non-payment at the time of filing does not automatically cause the dismissal of the case, as long as
the fee is paid within the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period, more so when the party
involved demonstrates a willingness to abide by the rules prescribing such payment. Thus,
Unicapital’s apprehension that Consing’s claim for damages of P2Million per month may balloon by
the end of the case, any amount that may by then fall due shall be subject to assessment and any
additional fees determined shall constitute a lien against the judgment, pursuant to Sec. 1, Rule 141.

3. No. Since the copy submitted to the trial court was duly notarized, and that it was only
Petitioner’s copy which lacked notarization, then there was sufficient compliance with the
requirements of the rules on pleadings.

4. No. Sec. 1, Rule 31 provides that when actions involving a common question of law or fact are
pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the
actions; it may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning
proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.
In this case, although the Makati and Pasig cases involved the same parties, and proceeded
form a similar factual milieu, they proceed from different sources of obligations, and must thus
remain unconsolidated. The Pasig case is one for injunction and damages based on Art. 19 of the Civil
Code, while the Makati case is a collection and damage suit based on actionable documents. Thus, a
resolution in one case would have no practical effect as the core issues and reliefs sought in each case
are separate and distinct from the other.