Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

Anyone who has ever struggled with poverty

knows how extremely expensive it is to be poor.
James Baldwin

THIRD DIVISION
SPOUSES ANTONIO F. ALGURA
and LORENCITA S.J. ALGURA,
Petitioners,

G.R. No. 150135

Present:

- versus Chairperson,

QUISUMBING, J.,
CARPIO,
CARPIO

MORALES,
THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
UNIT OF THE CITY OF NAGA,
ATTY. MANUEL TEOXON,
ENGR. LEON PALMIANO,
NATHAN SERGIO and
BENJAMIN NAVARRO, SR.,
Respondents.

TINGA, and
VELASCO, JR., JJ.
Promulgated:
October 30, 2006

x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
VELASCO, JR., J.:

The Constitution affords litigantsmoneyed or poor

equal access to the courts; moreover, it specifically provides
that poverty shall not bar any person from having access to the
courts.[1] Accordingly, laws and rules must be formulated,
interpreted, and implemented pursuant to the intent and spirit
of this constitutional provision. As such, filing fees, though one
of the essential elements in court procedures, should not be an
obstacle to poor litigants opportunity to seek redress for their
grievances before the courts.
The Case
This Petition for Review on Certiorari seeks the
annulment of the September 11, 2001 Order of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Naga City, Branch 27, in Civil Case No.
99-4403 entitled Spouses Antonio F. Algura and Lorencita S.J.
Algura v. The Local Government Unit of the City of Naga, et
al., dismissing the case for failure of petitioners Algura spouses
to pay the required filing fees.[2] Since the instant petition
involves only a question of law based on facts established from
the pleadings and documents submitted by the parties,[3] the
Court gives due course to the instant petition sanctioned under

Section 2(c) of Rule 41 on Appeal from the RTCs, and

governed by Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Facts
On September 1, 1999, spouses Antonio F. Algura and
Lorencita S.J. Algura filed a Verified Complaint dated August
30, 1999[4] for damages against the Naga City Government and
its officers, arising from the alleged illegal demolition of their
residence and boarding house and for payment of lost income
derived from fees paid by their boarders amounting to PhP
7,000.00 monthly.
Simultaneously, petitioners filed an Ex-Parte Motion to
Litigate as Indigent Litigants,[5] to which petitioner Antonio
Alguras Pay Slip No. 2457360 (Annex A of motion) was
appended, showing a gross monthly income of Ten Thousand
Four Hundred Seventy Four Pesos (PhP 10,474.00) and a net
pay of Three Thousand Six Hundred Sixteen Pesos and Ninety
Nine Centavos (PhP 3,616.99) for [the month of] July 1999.
[6]
Also attached as Annex B to the motion was a July 14,
1999 Certification[7] issued by the Office of the City Assessor
of Naga City, which stated that petitioners had no property
declared in their name for taxation purposes.

Finding that petitioners motion to litigate as indigent

litigants was meritorious, Executive Judge Jose T. Atienza of
the Naga City RTC, in the September 1, 1999 Order,[8] granted
petitioners plea for exemption from filing fees.
Meanwhile, as a result of respondent Naga City
Governments demolition of a portion of petitioners house, the
Alguras allegedly lost a monthly income of PhP 7,000.00 from
their boarders rentals. With the loss of the rentals, the meager
income from Lorencita Alguras sari-sari store and Antonio
Alguras small take home pay became insufficient for the
expenses of the Algura spouses and their six (6) children for
their basic needs including food, bills, clothes, and schooling,
among others.
On October 13, 1999, respondents filed an Answer with
Counterclaim dated October 10, 1999,[9] arguing that the
defenses of the petitioners in the complaint had no cause of
action, the spouses boarding house blocked the road right of
way, and said structure was a nuisance per se.
Praying that the counterclaim of defendants
(respondents) be dismissed, petitioners then filed their Reply
with Ex-Parte Request for a Pre-Trial Setting[10] before the
Naga City RTC on October 19, 1999. On February 3, 2000, a
pre-trial was held wherein respondents asked for five (5) days

within which to file a Motion to Disqualify Petitioners as

Indigent Litigants.
On March 13, 2000, respondents filed a Motion to
Disqualify the Plaintiffs for Non-Payment of Filing Fees
dated March 10, 2000.[11] They asserted that in addition to the
more than PhP 3,000.00 net income of petitioner Antonio
Algura, who is a member of the Philippine National Police,
spouse Lorencita Algura also had a mini-store and a computer
shop on the ground floor of their residence along Bayawas St.,
Sta. Cruz, Naga City. Also, respondents claimed that
petitioners second floor was used as their residence and as a
boarding house, from which they earned more than PhP
3,000.00 a month. In addition, it was claimed that petitioners
derived additional income from their computer shop patronized
by students and from several boarders who paid rentals to
them. Hence, respondents concluded that petitioners were not
indigent litigants.
On March 28, 2000, petitioners subsequently interposed
their Opposition to the Motion[12] to respondents motion to
disqualify them for non-payment of filing fees.
On April 14, 2000, the Naga City RTC issued an Order
disqualifying petitioners as indigent litigants on the ground that
they failed to substantiate their claim for exemption from
payment of legal fees and to comply with the third paragraph

of Rule 141, Section 18 of the Revised Rules of Court

directing them to pay the requisite filing fees.[13]
On April 28, 2000, petitioners filed a Motion for
Reconsideration of the April 14, 2000 Order. On May 8, 2000,
respondents then filed their Comment/Objections to
petitioners Motion for Reconsideration.
On May 5, 2000, the trial court issued an
Order[14] giving petitioners the opportunity to comply with the
requisites laid down in Section 18, Rule 141, for them to
qualify as indigent litigants.
On May 13, 2000, petitioners submitted their
Compliance[15] attaching the affidavits of petitioner Lorencita
Algura[16] and Erlinda Bangate,[17] to comply with the
requirements of then Rule 141, Section 18 of the Rules of
Court and in support of their claim to be declared as indigent
litigants.
In her May 13, 2000 Affidavit, petitioner Lorencita
Algura claimed that the demolition of their small dwelling
deprived her of a monthly income amounting to PhP
7,000.00. She, her husband, and their six (6) minor children
had to rely mainly on her husbands salary as a policeman
which provided them a monthly amount of PhP 3,500.00, more

or less. Also, they did not own any real property as certified by
the assessors office of Naga City. More so, according to her,
the meager net income from her small sari-sari store and the
rentals of some boarders, plus the salary of her husband, were
not enough to pay the familys basic necessities.
To buttress their position as qualified indigent litigants,
petitioners also submitted the affidavit of Erlinda Bangate, who
attested under oath, that she personally knew spouses Antonio
Algura and Lorencita Algura, who were her neighbors; that
they derived substantial income from their boarders; that they
lost said income from their boarders rentals when the Local
Government Unit of the City of Naga, through its officers,
demolished part of their house because from that time, only a
few boarders could be accommodated; that the income from
the small store, the boarders, and the meager salary of Antonio
Algura were insufficient for their basic necessities like food
and clothing, considering that the Algura spouses had six (6)
children; and that she knew that petitioners did not own any
real property.
Thereafter, Naga City RTC Acting Presiding Judge
Andres B. Barsaga, Jr. issued his July 17, 2000[18] Order
denying the petitioners Motion for Reconsideration.

Judge Barsaga ratiocinated that the pay slip of Antonio

F. Algura showed that the GROSS INCOME or TOTAL
EARNINGS of plaintiff Algura [was] 10,474.00 which
amount [was] over and above the amount mentioned in the first
paragraph of Rule 141, Section 18 for pauper litigants residing
outside Metro Manila.[19] Said rule provides that the gross
income of the litigant should not exceed PhP 3,000.00 a month
and shall not own real estate with an assessed value of PhP
50,000.00. The trial court found that, in Lorencita S.J.
Alguras May 13, 2000 Affidavit, nowhere was it stated that
she and her immediate family did not earn a gross income of
PhP 3,000.00.
The Issue
Unconvinced of the said ruling, the Alguras instituted the
instant petition raising a solitary issue for the consideration of
the Court: whether petitioners should be considered as
indigent litigants who qualify for exemption from paying filing
fees.
The Ruling of the Court
The petition is meritorious.

A review of the history of the Rules of Court on suits

in forma pauperis (pauper litigant) is necessary before the
Court rules on the issue of the Algura spouses claim to
exemption from paying filing fees.
When the Rules of Court took effect on January 1, 1964,
the rule on pauper litigants was found in Rule 3, Section 22
which provided that:
SECTION 22. Pauper litigant.Any
court may authorize a litigant to prosecute
his action or defense as a pauper upon a
proper showing that he has no means to
that effect by affidavits, certificate of the
corresponding
provincial,
city
or
municipal treasurer, or otherwise. Such
authority[,] once given[,] shall include an
exemption from payment of legal fees and
from filing appeal bond, printed record
and printed brief. The legal fees shall be a
lien to any judgment rendered in the case
[favorable] to the pauper, unless the court
otherwise provides.

From the same Rules of Court, Rule 141 on Legal Fees,

on the other hand, did not contain any provision on pauper
litigants.

On July 19, 1984, the Court, in Administrative Matter

No. 83-6-389-0 (formerly G.R. No. 64274), approved the
recommendation of the Committee on the Revision of Rates
and Charges of Court Fees, through its Chairman, then Justice
Felix V. Makasiar, to revise the fees in Rule 141 of the Rules of
Court to generate funds to effectively cover administrative
costs for services rendered by the courts. [20] A provision on
pauper litigants was inserted which reads:
SECTION
16. Pauper-litigants
exempt from payment of court fees.
Pauper-litigants include wage earners
whose gross income do not exceed
P2,000.00 a month or P24,000.00 a year
for those residing in Metro Manila, and
P1,500.00 a month or P18,000.00 a year
for those residing outside Metro Manila,
or those who do not own real property
with an assessed value of not more than
P24,000.00, or not more than P18,000.00
as the case may be.
Such exemption shall include
exemption from payment of fees for filing
appeal bond, printed record and printed
brief.
The legal fees shall be a lien on the
monetary or property judgment rendered
in favor of the pauper-litigant.

To be entitled to the exemption herein

provided, the pauper-litigant shall execute
an affidavit that he does not earn the gross
income abovementioned, nor own any real
property with the assessed value aforementioned [sic], supported by a
certification to that effect by the
provincial, city or town assessor or
treasurer.

When the Rules of Court on Civil Procedure were

amended by the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (inclusive of
Rules 1 to 71) in Supreme Court Resolution in Bar Matter No.
803 dated April 8, 1997, which became effective on July 1,
1997, Rule 3, Section 22 of the Revised Rules of Court was
superseded by Rule 3, Section 21 of said 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, as follows:
SECTION 21. Indigent party.A
party may be authorized to litigate his
action, claim or defense as an indigent if
the court, upon an ex parte application
and hearing, is satisfied that the party is
one who has no money or property
sufficient and available for food, shelter
and basic necessities for himself and his
family.

Such authority shall include an

exemption from payment of docket and
other lawful fees, and of transcripts of
stenographic notes which the court may
order to be furnished him. The amount of
the docket and other lawful fees which the
indigent was exempted from paying shall
be a lien on any judgment rendered in the
case favorable to the indigent, unless the
court otherwise provides.
Any adverse party may contest the
grant of such authority at any time before
judgment is rendered by the trial court. If
the court should determine after hearing
that the party declared as an indigent is in
fact a person with sufficient income or
property, the proper docket and other
lawful fees shall be assessed and collected
by the clerk of court. If payment is not
made within the time fixed by the court,
execution shall issue for the payment
thereof, without prejudice to such other
sanctions as the court may impose.

At the time the Rules on Civil Procedure were amended

by the Court in Bar Matter No. 803, however, there was no
amendment made on Rule 141, Section 16 on pauper litigants.
On March 1, 2000, Rule 141 on Legal Fees was amended
by the Court in A.M. No. 00-2-01-SC, whereby certain fees
were increased or adjusted. In this Resolution, the Court

amended Section 16 of Rule 141, making it Section 18, which

now reads:
SECTION
18. Pauper-litigants
exempt from payment of legal fees.
Pauper litigants (a) whose gross income
and that of their immediate family do not
exceed four thousand (P4,000.00) pesos a
month if residing in Metro Manila, and
three thousand (P3,000.00) pesos a month
if residing outside Metro Manila, and (b)
who do not own real property with an
assessed value of more than fifty thousand
(P50,000.00) pesos shall be exempt from
the payment of legal fees.
The legal fees shall be a lien on any
judgment rendered in the case favorably
to the pauper litigant, unless the court
otherwise provides.
To be entitled to the exemption herein
provided, the litigant shall execute an
affidavit that he and his immediate family
do not earn the gross income
abovementioned, nor do they own any real
property with the assessed value
aforementioned, supported by an affidavit
of a disinterested person attesting to the
truth of the litigants affidavit.
Any falsity in the affidavit of a
litigant or disinterested person shall be

sufficient cause to strike out the pleading

of that party, without prejudice to
whatever criminal liability may have been
incurred.

It can be readily seen that the rule on pauper litigants

was inserted in Rule 141 without revoking or
amending Section 21 of Rule 3, which provides for the
exemption of pauper litigants from payment of filing fees.
Thus, on March 1, 2000, there were two existing rules on
pauper litigants; namely, Rule 3, Section 21 and Rule 141,
Section 18.
On August 16, 2004, Section 18 of Rule 141 was further
amended in Administrative Matter No. 04-2-04-SC, which
became effective on the same date. It then became Section 19
of Rule 141, to wit:

SEC. 19. Indigent litigants exempt

from payment of legal fees.INDIGENT
LITIGANTS
(A) WHOSE
GROSS
INCOME AND THAT OF THEIR
IMMEDIATE FAMILY DO NOT
EXCEED AN AMOUNT DOUBLE
THE MONTHLY MINIMUM WAGE
OF AN EMPLOYEE AND (B) WHO

DO NOT OWN REAL PROPERTY

WITH A FAIR MARKET VALUE AS
STATED IN THE CURRENT TAX
DECLARATION OF MORE THAN
THREE
HUNDRED
THOUSAND
(P300,000.00)
PESOS SHALL
BE
EXEMPT FROM PAYMENT OF
LEGAL FEES.
The legal fees shall be a lien on any
judgment rendered in the case favorable to
the indigent litigant unless the court
otherwise provides.
To be entitled to the exemption
herein provided, the litigant shall
execute an affidavit that he and his
immediate family do not earn a gross
income abovementioned, and they do
not own any real property with the fair
value aforementioned, supported by an
affidavit of a disinterested person
attesting to the truth of the litigants
affidavit. The current tax declaration, if
any, shall be attached to the litigants
affidavit.
Any falsity in the affidavit of litigant
or disinterested person shall be sufficient
cause to dismiss the complaint or action or
to strike out the pleading of that party,
without prejudice to whatever criminal

liability
may
have
incurred. (Emphasis supplied.)

been

Amendments to Rule 141 (including the amendment to

Rule 141, Section 18) were made to implement RA 9227 which
brought about new increases in filing fees. Specifically, in the
August 16, 2004 amendment, the ceiling for the gross income
of litigants applying for exemption and that of their immediate
family was increased from PhP 4,000.00 a month in Metro
Manila and PhP 3,000.00 a month outside Metro Manila, to
double the monthly minimum wage of an employee; and the
maximum value of the property owned by the applicant was
increased from an assessed value of PhP 50,000.00 to a
maximum market value of PhP 300,000.00, to be able to
accommodate more indigent litigants and promote easier
access to justice by the poor and the marginalized in the wake
of these new increases in filing fees.
Even if there was an amendment to Rule 141 on August
16, 2004, there was still no amendment or recall of Rule 3,
Section 21 on indigent litigants.
With this historical backdrop, let us now move on to the
sole issuewhether petitioners are exempt from the payment
of filing fees.

It is undisputed that the Complaint (Civil Case No. 994403) was filed on September 1, 1999. However, the Naga
City RTC, in its April 14, 2000 and July 17, 2000
Orders, incorrectly applied Rule 141, Section 18 on Legal
Fees when the applicable rules at that time were Rule 3,
Section 21 on Indigent Party which took effect on July 1,
1997 and Rule 141, Section 16 on Pauper Litigants which
became effective on July 19, 1984 up to February 28, 2000.
The old Section 16, Rule 141 requires applicants to file
an ex-parte motion to litigate as a pauper litigant by submitting
an affidavit that they do not have a gross income of PhP
2,000.00 a month or PhP 24,000.00 a year for those residing in
Metro Manila and PhP 1,500.00 a month or PhP 18,000.00 a
year for those residing outside Metro Manila or those who do
not own real property with an assessed value of not more than
PhP 24,000.00 or not more than PhP 18,000.00 as the case may
be. Thus, there are two requirements: a) income requirement
the applicants should not have a gross monthly income of more
than PhP 1,500.00, and b) property requirementthey should
not own property with an assessed value of not more than PhP
18,000.00.
In the case at bar, petitioners Alguras submitted the
Affidavits of petitioner Lorencita Algura and neighbor Erlinda

Bangate, the pay slip of petitioner Antonio F. Algura showing a

gross monthly income of PhP 10,474.00,[21] and a Certification
of the Naga City assessor stating that petitioners do not have
property declared in their names for taxation.[22] Undoubtedly,
petitioners do not own real property as shown by the
Certification of the Naga City assessor and so the property
requirement is met. However with respect to the income
requirement, it is clear that the gross monthly income of PhP
10,474.00 of petitioner Antonio F. Algura and the PhP 3,000.00
income of Lorencita Algura when combined, were above the
PhP 1,500.00 monthly income threshold prescribed by then
Rule 141, Section 16 and therefore, the income requirement
was not satisfied. The trial court was therefore correct in
disqualifying petitioners Alguras as indigent litigants although
the court should have applied Rule 141, Section 16 which was
in effect at the time of the filing of the application
on September 1, 1999. Even if Rule 141, Section 18 (which
superseded Rule 141, Section 16 on March 1, 2000) were
applied, still the application could not have been granted as the
combined PhP 13,474.00 income of petitioners was beyond the
PhP 3,000.00 monthly income threshold.
Unrelenting, petitioners however argue in their Motion
for Reconsideration of the April 14, 2000 Order disqualifying
them as indigent litigants[23] that the rules have been relaxed by
relying on Rule 3, Section 21 of the 1997 Rules of Civil

procedure which authorizes parties to litigate their action as

indigents if the court is satisfied that the party is one who has
no money or property sufficient and available for food, shelter
and basic necessities for himself and his family. The trial
court did not give credence to this view of petitioners and
simply applied Rule 141 but ignored Rule 3, Section 21 on
Indigent Party.
The position of petitioners on the need to use Rule 3,
Section 21 on their application to litigate as indigent litigants
brings to the fore the issue on whether a trial court has to apply
both Rule 141, Section 16 and Rule 3, Section 21 on such
applications or should the court apply only Rule 141, Section
16 and discard Rule 3, Section 21 as having been superseded
by Rule 141, Section 16 on Legal Fees.

Rule 141, Section 16, which took effect on July 19,

1984 through A.M. No. 83-6-389-0. If that is the case, then the
Supreme Court, upon the recommendation of the Committee
on the Revision on Rules, could have already deleted Section
22 from Rule 3 when it amended Rules 1 to 71 and approved
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which took effect on July 1,
1997. The fact that Section 22 which became Rule 3, Section
21 on indigent litigant was retained in the rules of procedure,
even elaborating on the meaning of an indigent party, and was
also strengthened by the addition of a third paragraph on the
right to contest the grant of authority to litigate only goes to
show that there was no intent at all to consider said rule as
expunged from the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court rules that Rule 3, Section 21 and Rule 141,

Section 16 (later amended as Rule 141, Section 18 on March 1,
2000 and subsequently amended by Rule 141, Section 19 on
August 16, 2003, which is now the present rule) are still valid
and enforceable rules on indigent litigants.

Furthermore, Rule 141 on indigent litigants was

amended
twice: first on March
1,
2000 and
the second on August 16, 2004; and yet, despite these two
amendments, there was no attempt to delete Section 21 from
said Rule 3. This clearly evinces the desire of the Court to
maintain the two (2) rules on indigent litigants to cover
applications to litigate as an indigent litigant.

For one, the history of the two seemingly conflicting

rules readily reveals that it was not the intent of the Court to
consider the old Section 22 of Rule 3, which took effect
on January 1, 1994 to have been amended and superseded by

It may be argued that Rule 3, Section 21 has been

impliedly repealed by the recent 2000 and 2004 amendments to
Rule 141 on legal fees. This position is bereft of
merit. Implied repeals are frowned upon unless the intent of

the framers of the rules is unequivocal. It has been consistently

ruled that:

Section 19 of Rule 141, the Court finds that the two rules can
and should be harmonized.

(r)epeals by implication are not favored,

and will not be decreed, unless it is
manifest that the legislature so
intended. As laws are presumed to be
passed with deliberation and with full
knowledge of all existing ones on the
subject, it is but reasonable to conclude
that in passing a statute[,] it was not
intended to interfere with or abrogate any
former law relating to same matter, unless
the repugnancy between the two is not
only irreconcilable, but also clear and
convincing, and flowing necessarily from
the language used, unless the later act
fully embraces the subject matter of the
earlier, or unless the reason for the earlier
act
is
beyond
peradventure
removed. Hence, every effort must be
used to make all acts stand and if, by any
reasonable construction
they
can
be reconciled, the later act will not operate
as a repeal of the earlier.[24] (Emphasis
supplied).

The Court opts to reconcile Rule 3, Section 21 and Rule

141, Section 19 because it is a settled principle that when
conflicts are seen between two provisions, all efforts must be
made to harmonize them. Hence, every statute [or rule] must
be so construed and harmonized with other statutes [or rules] as
to form a uniform system of jurisprudence.[25]

Instead of declaring that Rule 3, Section 21 has been

superseded and impliedly amended by Section 18 and later

In Manila Jockey Club, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, this

Court enunciated that in the interpretation of seemingly
conflicting laws, efforts must be made to first harmonize
them. This Court thus ruled:
Consequently, every statute should be
construed in such a way that will
harmonize it with existing laws. This
principle is expressed in the legal maxim
interpretare et concordare leges legibus
est optimus interpretandi, that is, to
interpret and to do it in such a way as to
harmonize laws with laws is the best
method of interpretation.[26]

In the light of the foregoing considerations, therefore, the

two (2) rules can stand together and are compatible with each

other. When an application to litigate as an indigent litigant is

filed, the court shall scrutinize the affidavits and supporting
documents submitted by the applicant to determine if the
applicant complies with the income and property standards
prescribed in the present Section 19 of Rule 141that is, the
applicants gross income and that of the applicants immediate
family do not exceed an amount double the monthly minimum
wage of an employee; and the applicant does not own real
property with a fair market value of more than Three Hundred
Thousand Pesos (PhP 300,000.00). If the trial court finds that
the applicant meets the income and property requirements, the
authority to litigate as indigent litigant is automatically granted
and the grant is a matter of right.
However, if the trial court finds that one or both
requirements have not been met, then it would set a hearing to
enable the applicant to prove that the applicant has no money
or property sufficient and available for food, shelter and basic
necessities for himself and his family. In that hearing, the
adverse party may adduce countervailing evidence to disprove
the evidence presented by the applicant; after which the trial
court will rule on the application depending on the evidence
adduced. In addition, Section 21 of Rule 3 also provides that
the adverse party may later still contest the grant of such
authority at any time before judgment is rendered by the trial
court, possibly based on newly discovered evidence not

obtained at the time the application was heard. If the court

determines after hearing, that the party declared as an indigent
is in fact a person with sufficient income or property, the
proper docket and other lawful fees shall be assessed and
collected by the clerk of court. If payment is not made within
the time fixed by the court, execution shall issue or the
payment of prescribed fees shall be made, without prejudice to
such other sanctions as the court may impose.
The Court concedes that Rule 141, Section 19 provides
specific standards while Rule 3, Section 21 does not clearly
draw the limits of the entitlement to the exemption. Knowing
that the litigants may abuse the grant of authority, the trial court
must use sound discretion and scrutinize evidence strictly in
granting exemptions, aware that the applicant has not hurdled
the precise standards under Rule 141. The trial court must also
guard against abuse and misuse of the privilege to litigate as an
indigent litigant to prevent the filing of exorbitant claims which
would otherwise be regulated by a legal fee requirement.
Thus, the trial court should have applied Rule 3, Section
21 to the application of the Alguras after their affidavits and
supporting documents showed that petitioners did not satisfy
the twin requirements on gross monthly income and ownership
of real property under Rule 141. Instead of disqualifying the
Alguras as indigent litigants, the trial court should have called

a hearing as required by Rule 3, Section 21 to enable the

petitioners to adduce evidence to show that they didnt have
property and money sufficient and available for food, shelter,
and basic necessities for them and their family.[27] In that
hearing, the respondents would have had the right to also
present evidence to refute the allegations and evidence in
support of the application of the petitioners to litigate as
indigent litigants. Since this Court is not a trier of facts, it will
have to remand the case to the trial court to determine whether
petitioners can be considered as indigent litigants using the
standards set in Rule 3, Section 21.
Recapitulating the rules on indigent litigants, therefore, if
the applicant for exemption meets the salary and property
requirements under Section 19 of Rule 141, then the grant of
the application is mandatory. On the other hand, when the
application does not satisfy one or both requirements, then the
application should not be denied outright; instead, the court
should apply the indigency test under Section 21 of Rule 3
and use its sound discretion in determining the merits of the
prayer for exemption.
Access to justice by the impoverished is held sacrosanct
under Article III, Section 11 of the 1987 Constitution. The
Action Program for Judicial Reforms (APJR) itself, initiated by
former Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., placed prime

importance on easy access to justice by the poor as one of its

six major components. Likewise, the judicial philosophy
of Liberty and Prosperity of Chief Justice Artemio V.
Panganiban makes it imperative that the courts shall not only
safeguard but also enhance the rights of individualswhich are
considered sacred under the 1987 Constitution. Without doubt,
one of the most precious rights which must be shielded and
secured is the unhampered access to the justice system by the
poor, the underprivileged, and the marginalized.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the
April 14, 2000 Order granting the disqualification of
petitioners, the July 17, 2000 Order denying petitioners
Motion for Reconsideration, and the September 11, 2001 Order
dismissing the case in Civil Case No. RTC-99-4403 before the
Naga City RTC, Branch 27 are ANNULLED and SET
ASIDE. Furthermore, the Naga City RTC is ordered to set the
Ex-Parte Motion to Litigate as Indigent Litigants for hearing
and apply Rule 3, Section 21 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure to determine whether petitioners can qualify as
indigent litigants.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.