THIRD DIVISION trust receipt agreements dated June 4, 1996,3 January 14, 1997,4 and April 24,

1997.5
G.R. No. 151242 June 15, 2005
Under the terms of the trust receipt agreements, Proton would receive imported
PROTON PILIPINAS CORPORATION, AUTOMOTIVE PHILIPPINES, ASEA ONE passenger motor vehicles and hold them in trust for BNP. Proton would be free
CORPORATION and AUTOCORP, Petitioners, to sell the vehicles subject to the condition that it would deliver the proceeds of
vs. the sale to BNP, to be applied to its obligations to it. In case the vehicles are not
BANQUE NATIONALE DE PARIS,1 Respondent. CARPIO MORALES, J.: sold, Proton would return them to BNP, together with all the accompanying
documents of title.
Actions; Pleadings and Practice; Jurisdictions; Docket Fees; It is not
simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading, but the Allegedly, Proton failed to deliver the proceeds of the sale and return the unsold
payment of the prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court with motor vehicles.
jurisdiction over the subject-matter or nature of the action.—1. It is not
simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading, but the Pursuant to the corporate guarantee, BNP demanded from Automotive, Asea
payment of the prescribed docket fee that vests a trial court with jurisdiction and Autocorp the payment of the amount of US$1,544,984.406 representing
over the subject-matter or nature of the action. Where the filing of the initiatory Proton's total outstanding obligations. These guarantors refused to pay,
pleading is not accompanied by payment of the docket fee, the court may allow however. Hence, BNP filed on September 7, 1998 before the Makati Regional
payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in no case beyond the Trial Court (RTC) a complaint against petitioners praying that they be ordered
applicable prescriptive or reglementary period; 2. The same rule applies to to pay (1) US$1,544,984.40 plus accrued interest and other related charges
permissive counterclaims, third-party claims and similar pleadings, which shall thereon subsequent to August 15, 1998 until fully paid and (2) an amount
not be considered filed until and unless the filing fee prescribed therefor is paid. equivalent to 5% of all sums due from petitioners as attorney's fees.
The court may also allow payment of said fee within a reasonable time but also
in no case beyond its applicable prescriptive or reglementary period; 3. Where The Makati RTC Clerk of Court assessed the docket fees which BNP paid at
the trial court acquires jurisdiction over a claim by the filing of the appropriate ₱352,116.307 which was computed as follows:8
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 First Cause of Action $ 844,674.07
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 Second Cause of Action 171,120.53
the additional fee. Third Cause of Action 529,189.80

$1,544,984.40

5% as Attorney's Fees $ 77,249.22

TOTAL ………….. $1,622,233.62

Conversion rate to peso x 43_

It appears that sometime in 1995, petitioner Proton Pilipinas Corporation
TOTAL ………….. ₱69,756,000.00
(Proton) availed of the credit facilities of herein respondent, Banque Nationale
(roundoff)
de Paris (BNP). To guarantee the payment of its obligation, its co-petitioners
Automotive Corporation Philippines (Automotive), Asea One Corporation
(Asea) and Autocorp Group (Autocorp) executed a corporate guarantee2 to the Computation based on Rule 141:
extent of US$2,000,000.00. BNP and Proton subsequently entered into three
 COURT JDF this case) to pay the correct docket fees, thus the Motion to dismiss is
premature, aside from being without any legal basis.
₱ 69,756,000.00 ₱ 69.606.000.00
As held in the case of National Steel Corporation vs. CA, G.R. No. 123215,
- 150,000.00 x .003 February 2, 1999, the Supreme Court said:
69,606,000.00 208,818.00
xxx
x .002 + 450.00
Although the payment of the proper docket fees is a jurisdictional requirement,
139,212.00 ₱ 209,268.00 the trial court may allow the plaintiff in an action to pay the same within a
+ 150.00 reasonable time within the expiration of applicable prescription or
reglementary period. If the plaintiff fails to comply with this requirement, the
₱ 139,362.00 defendant should timely raise the issue of jurisdiction or else he would be
considered in estoppel. In the latter case, the balance between appropriate
LEGAL : ₱139,362.00 docket fees and the amount actually paid by the plaintiff will be considered a
lien or (sic) any award he may obtain in his favor.
+ 209,268.00

₱348,630.00 x 1% = ₱3,486.30 As to the second ground relied upon by the defendants, in that a review of all
annexes to the complaint of the plaintiff reveals that there is not a single formal
₱ 139,362.00 demand letter for defendants to fulfill the terms and conditions of the three (3)
trust agreements.
+ 209,268.00
In this regard, the court cannot sustain the submission of defendant. As
3,486.00
correctly pointed out by the plaintiff, failure to make a formal demand for the
₱ 352,116.30 - Total fees paid by the plaintiff debtor to pay the plaintiff is not among the legal grounds for the dismissal of the
case. Anyway, in the appreciation of the court, this is simply evidentiary.

To the complaint, the defendants-herein petitioners filed on October 12, 1998 a xxx
Motion to Dismiss9 on the ground that BNP failed to pay the correct docket fees
to thus prevent the trial court from acquiring jurisdiction over the case.10 As
WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the Motion to Dismiss interposed by the
additional ground, petitioners raised prematurity of the complaint, BNP not
defendants is hereby DENIED.13 (Underscoring supplied)
having priorly sent any demand letter.11
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration14 of the denial of their Motion to
By Order12 of August 3, 1999, Branch 148 of the Makati RTC denied petitioners'
Dismiss, but it was denied by the trial court by Order15 of October 3, 2000.
Motion to Dismiss, viz:
Petitioners thereupon brought the case on certiorari and mandamus16 to the
Resolving the first ground relied upon by the defendant, this court believes and
Court of Appeals which, by Decision17 of July 25, 2001, denied it in this wise:
so hold that the docket fees were properly paid. It is the Office of the Clerk of
Court of this station that computes the correct docket fees, and it is their duty to
assess the docket fees correctly, which they did.1avvphi1.zw+ … Section 7(a) of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court excludes interest accruing from
the principal amount being claimed in the pleading in the computation of the
prescribed filing fees. The complaint was submitted for the computation of the
Even granting arguendo that the docket fees were not properly paid, the court
filing fee to the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Makati
cannot just dismiss the case. The Court has not yet ordered (and it will not in
City which made an assessment that respondent paid accordingly. What the
Office of the Clerk of Court did and the ruling of the respondent Judge find
support in the decisions of the Supreme Court in Ng Soon vs. Alday and Tacay 18, 2001 for being contrary to law, to Administrative Circular No. 11-94 and
vs. RTC of Tagum, Davao del Norte. In the latter case, the Supreme Court Circular No. 7 and instead direct the court a quo to require Private Respondent
explicitly ruled that "where the action is purely for recovery of money or Banque to pay the correct docket fee pursuant to the correct exchange rate of
damages, the docket fees are assessed on the basis of the aggregate amount the dollar to the peso on September 7, 1998 and to quantify its claims for
claimed, exclusive only of interests and costs." interests on the principal obligations in the first, second and third causes of
actions in its Complaint in Civil Case No. 98-2180.22 (Underscoring supplied)
Assuming arguendo that the correct filing fees was not made, the rule is that the
court may allow a reasonable time for the payment of the prescribed fees, or the Citing Administrative Circular No. 11-94,23 petitioners argue that BNP failed to
balance thereof, and upon such payment, the defect is cured and the court may pay the correct docket fees as the said circular provides that in the assessment
properly take cognizance of the action unless in the meantime prescription has thereof, interest claimed should be included. There being an underpayment of
set in and consequently barred the right of action. Here respondent Judge did the docket fees, petitioners conclude, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction
not make any finding, and rightly so, that the filing fee paid by private over the case.
respondent was insufficient.
Additionally, petitioners point out that the clerk of court, in converting BNP's
On the issue of the correct dollar-peso rate of exchange, the Office of the Clerk of claims from US dollars to Philippine pesos, applied the wrong exchange rate of
Court of the RTC of Makati pegged it at ₱ 43.21 to US$1. In the absence of any US $1 = ₱43.00, the exchange rate on September 7, 1998 when the complaint
office guide of the rate of exchange which said court functionary was duty was filed having been pegged at US $1 = ₱43.21. Thus, by petitioners'
bound to follow, the rate he applied is presumptively correct. computation, BNP's claim as of August 15, 1998 was actually ₱70,096,714.72,24
not ₱69,756,045.66.
Respondent Judge correctly ruled that the matter of demand letter is
evidentiary and does not form part of the required allegations in a complaint. Furthermore, petitioners submit that pursuant to Supreme Court Circular No.
Section 1, Rule 8 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure pertinently provides: 7,25 the complaint should have been dismissed for failure to specify the amount
of interest in the prayer.
"Every pleading shall contain in a methodical and logical form, a plain, concise
and direct statement of the ultimate facts on which the party pleading relies for Circular No. 7 reads:
his claim or defense, as the case may be, omitted the statement of mere
evidentiary facts." TO: JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT OF THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES,
Judging from the allegations of the complaint particularly paragraphs 6, 12, 18, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS, SHARI'A
and 23 where allegations of imputed demands were made upon the defendants DISTRICT COURTS;AND THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES
to fulfill their respective obligations, annexing the demand letters for the
purpose of putting up a sufficient cause of action is not required. SUBJECT: ALL COMPLAINTS MUST SPECIFY AMOUNT OF DAMAGES SOUGHT
NOT ONLY IN THE BODY OF THE PLEADING, BUT ALSO IN THE PRAYER IN
In fine, respondent Judge committed no grave abuse of discretion amounting to ORDER TO BE ACCEPTED AND ADMITTED FOR FILING. THE AMOUNT OF
lack or excess of jurisdiction to warrant certiorari and mandamus. 18 DAMAGES SO SPECIFIED IN THE COMPLAINT SHALL BE THE BASIS FOR
(Underscoring supplied) ASSESSING THE AMOUNT OF THE FILING FEES.

Their Motion for Reconsideration19 having been denied by the Court of In Manchester Development Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, No. L-75919, May 7,
Appeals,20 petitioners filed the present petition for review on certiorari21 and 1987, 149 SCRA 562, this Court condemned the practice of counsel who in filing
pray for the following reliefs: the original complaint omitted from the prayer any specification of the amount
of damages although the amount of over P78 million is alleged in the body of the
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, it is most respectfully prayed of this complaint. This Court observed that "(T)his is clearly intended for no other
Honorable Court to grant the instant petition by REVERSING and SETTING purpose than to evade the payment of the correct filing fees if not to mislead the
ASIDE the questioned Decision of July 25, 2001 and the Resolution of December docket clerk, in the assessment of the filing fee. This fraudulent practice was
compounded when, even as this Court had taken cognizance of the anomaly and 2. On the FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION -
ordered an investigation, petitioner through another counsel filed an amended
complaint, deleting all mention of the amount of damages being asked for in the (c) Defendant PROTON be ordered to pay the sum of (i) US DOLLARS EIGHT
body of the complaint. xxx" HUNDRED FORTY FOUR THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED SEVENTY FOUR AND
SEVEN CENTS (US$ 844,674.07), plus accrued interests and other related
For the guidance of all concerned, the WARNING given by the court in the afore- charges thereon subsequent to August 15, 1998, until fully paid; and (ii) an
cited case is reproduced hereunder: amount equivalent to 5% of all sums due from said Defendant, as and for
attorney's fees;
"The Court serves warning that it will take drastic action upon a repetition of
this unethical practice. 3. On the SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION -

To put a stop to this irregularity, henceforth all complaints, petitions, answers (d) Defendant PROTON be ordered to pay the sum of (i) US DOLLARS ONE
and other similar pleadings should specify the amount of damages being HUNDRED TWENTY AND FIFTY THREE CENTS (US$171,120.53), plus accrued
prayed for not only in the body of the pleading but also in the prayer, and interests and other related charges thereon subsequent to August 15, 1998 until
said damages shall be considered in the assessment of the filing fees in any fully paid; and (ii) an amount equivalent to 5% of all sums due from said
case. Any pleading that fails to comply with this requirement shall not be Defendant, as and for attorney's fees;
accepted nor admitted, or shall otherwise be expunged from the record.
4. On the THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION -
The Court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the
prescribed docket fee. An amendment of the complaint or similar pleading will (e) Defendant PROTON be ordered to pay the sum of (i) US DOLLARS FIVE
not thereby vest jurisdiction in the Court, much less the payment of the docket HUNDRED TWENTY NINE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY NINE AND
fee based on the amount sought in the amended pleading. The ruling in the EIGHTY CENTS (US$529,189.80), plus accrued interests and other related
Magaspi case (115 SCRA 193) in so far as it is inconsistent with this charges thereon subsequent to August 15, 1998 until fully paid; and (ii) an
pronouncement is overturned and reversed." amount equivalent to 5% or all sums due from said Defendant, as and for
attorney's fees;
Strict compliance with this Circular is hereby enjoined.
5. On ALL THE CAUSES OF ACTION -
Let this be circularized to all the courts hereinabove named and to the President
and Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, which is hereby Defendants AUTOMOTIVE CORPORATION PHILIPPINES, ASEA ONE
directed to disseminate this Circular to all its members. CORPORATION and AUTOCORP GROUP to be ordered to pay Plaintiff BNP the
aggregate sum of (i) US DOLLARS ONE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED FORTY FOUR
March 24, 1988. THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED EIGHTY FOUR AND FORTY CENTS
(US$1,544,984.40) (First through Third Causes of Action), plus accrued interest
(Sgd). CLAUDIO TEEHANKEE and other related charges thereon subsequent to August 15, 1998 until fully
Chief Justice paid; and (ii) an amount equivalent to 5% of all sums due from said Defendants,
as and for attorney's fees.26
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Moreover, respondent posits that the amount of US$1,544,984.40 represents
On the other hand, respondent maintains that it had paid the filing fee which not only the principal but also interest and other related charges which had
was assessed by the clerk of court, and that there was no violation of Supreme accrued as of August 15, 1998. Respondent goes even further by suggesting that
Court Circular No. 7 because the amount of damages was clearly specified in the in light of Tacay v. Regional Trial Court of Tagum, Davao del Norte 27 where the
prayer, to wit: Supreme Court held,
Where the action is purely for the recovery of money or damages, the docket When the complaint in this case was filed in 1998, however, as correctly pointed
fees are assessed on the basis of the aggregate amount claimed, exclusive out by petitioners, Rule 141 had been amended by Administrative Circular No.
only of interests and costs.28 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied), 11-9429 which provides:

it made an overpayment. BY RESOLUTION OF THE COURT, DATED JUNE 28, 1994, PURSUANT TO
SECTION 5 (5) OF ARTICLE VIII OF THE CONSTITUTION, RULE 141, SECTION 7
When Tacay was decided in 1989, the pertinent rule applicable was Section 5 (a) AND (d), and SECTION 8 (a) and (b) OF THE RULES OF COURT ARE HEREBY
(a) of Rule 141 which provided for the following: AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:

SEC. 5. Clerks of Regional Trial Courts. - (a) For filing an action or proceeding, or RULE 141
a permissive counter-claim or cross-claim not arising out of the same LEGAL FEES
transaction subject of the complaint, a third-party complaint and a complaint in
intervention and for all services in the same, if the sum claimed, exclusive of xxx
interest, of the value of the property in litigation, or the value of the estate,
is: Sec. 7. Clerks of Regional Trial Courts

1. Less than ₱ 5,000.00 ….……………………………… ₱ 32.00 (a) For filing an action or a permissive counterclaim or money claim against an
estate not based on judgment, or for filing with leave of court a third-party,
2. ₱ 5,000.00 or more but less than ₱ 10,000.00 ………… 48.00 fourth-party, etc. complaint, or a complaint in intervention, and for all clerical
services in the same, if the total sum claimed, inclusive of interest, damages
3. ₱ 10,000.00 or more but less than ₱ 20,000.00 ……….. 64.00 of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs, or the
stated value of the property in litigation, is:
4. ₱ 20,000.00 or more but less than ₱ 40,000.00 ……….. 80.00

5. ₱ 40,000.00 or more but less than ₱ 60,000.00 ……….. 120.00 1. Not more than ₱ 100,000.00 …………………………… ₱ 400.00
6. ₱ 60,000.00 or more but less than ₱ 80,000.00 ………. 160.00 2. ₱ 100,000.00, or more but not more than ₱ 150,000.00 … 600.00
7. ₱ 80,000.00 or more but less than ₱ 150,000.00 ……… 200.00 3. For each ₱ 1,000.00 in excess of ₱ 150,000.00 …………. 5.00
8. And for each ₱ 1,000.00 in excess of ₱ 150,000.00 ..... 4.00
xxx
9. When the value of the case cannot be estimated ……… 400.00

10. When the case does not concern property Sec. 8. Clerks of Metropolitan and Municipal Trial Courts
(naturalization, adoption, legal separation, etc.) ..……... 64.00
(a) For each civil action or proceeding, where the
11. In forcible entry and illegal detainer cases value of the subject matter involved, or the amount
appealed from inferior courts …………………………………. 40.00 of the demand, inclusive of interest, damages or
whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses,
If the case concerns real estate, the assessed value thereof shall be considered in and costs, is:
computing the fees.
₱
In case the value of the property or estate or the sum claim is less or more in 1. Not more than ₱ 20,000.00 …………………………… ...
120.00
accordance with the appraisal of the court, the difference of fees shall be
refunded or paid as the case may be. 2. More than ₱ 20,000.00 but not more than ₱ 100,000.00 400.00
 …. claimed in the complaint but is less or more than what is later proved. If what is
proved is less than what was claimed, then a refund will be made; if more,
More than ₱ 100,000.00 but not more than ₱ 200,000.00 additional fees will be exacted. Otherwise stated, what is subject to adjustment
3. 850.00 is the difference in the fee and not the whole amount" (Pilipinas Shell Petroleum
…
Corp., et als., vs. Court of Appeals, et als., G.R. No. 76119, April 10, 1989). 32
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Respecting the Court of Appeals' conclusion that the clerk of court did not err
The clerk of court should thus have assessed the filing fee by taking into when he applied the exchange rate of US $1 = ₱43.00 "[i]n the absence of any
consideration "the total sum claimed, inclusive of interest, damages of whatever office guide of the rate of exchange which said court functionary was duty
kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs, or the stated value of the bound to follow,[hence,] the rate he applied is presumptively correct," the same
property in litigation." Respondent's and the Court of Appeals' reliance then on does not lie. The presumption of regularity of the clerk of court's application of
Tacay was not in order. the exchange rate is not conclusive.33 It is disputable.34 As such, the
presumption may be overturned by the requisite rebutting evidence. 35 In the
Neither was, for the same reason, the Court of Appeals' reliance on the 1989 case at bar, petitioners have adequately proven with documentary evidence 36
case of Ng Soon v. Alday,30 where this Court held: that the exchange rate when the complaint was filed on September 7, 1998 was
US $1 = ₱43.21.
…The failure to state the rate of interest demanded was not fatal not only
because it is the Courts which ultimately fix the same, but also because Rule In fine, the docket fees paid by respondent were insufficient.
141, Section 5(a) of the Rules of Court, itemizing the filing fees, speaks of
"the sum claimed, exclusive of interest." This clearly implies that the With respect to petitioner's argument that the trial court did not acquire
specification of the interest rate is not that indispensable. jurisdiction over the case in light of the insufficient docket fees, the same does
not lie.
Factually, therefore, not everything was left to "guesswork" as respondent Judge
has opined. The sums claimed were ascertainable, sufficient enough to allow a True, in Manchester Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals,37 this Court
computation pursuant to Rule 141, section 5(a). held that the court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of
the prescribed docket fees,38 hence, it concluded that the trial court did not
Furthermore, contrary to the position taken by respondent Judge, the amounts acquire jurisdiction over the case.
claimed need not be initially stated with mathematical precision. The
same Rule 141, section 5(a) (3rd paragraph), allows an appraisal "more or It bears emphasis, however, that the ruling in Manchester was clarified in Sun
less."31 Thus: Insurance Office, Ltd. (SIOL) v. Asuncion39 when this Court held that in the former
there was clearly an effort to defraud the government in avoiding to pay the
"In case the value of the property or estate or the sum claimed is less or more in correct docket fees, whereas in the latter the plaintiff demonstrated his
accordance with the appraisal of the court, the difference of fee shall be willingness to abide by paying the additional fees as required.
refunded or paid as the case may be."
The principle in Manchester could very well be applied in the present case. The
In other words, a final determination is still to be made by the Court, and the pattern and the intent to defraud the government of the docket fee due it is
fees ultimately found to be payable will either be additionally paid by the party obvious not only in the filing of the original complaint but also in the filing of the
concerned or refunded to him, as the case may be. The above provision clearly second amended complaint.
allows an initial payment of the filing fees corresponding to the estimated
amount of the claim subject to adjustment as to what later may be proved. However, in Manchester, petitioner did not pay any additional docket fee until
the case was decided by this Court on May 7, 1987. Thus, in Manchester, due
". . . there is merit in petitioner's claim that the third paragraph of Rule 141, to the fraud committed on the government, this Court held that the court a
Section 5(a) clearly contemplates a situation where an amount is alleged or quo did not acquire jurisdiction over the case and that the amended
complaint could not have been admitted inasmuch as the original The ruling in Sun Insurance Office was echoed in the 2005 case of Heirs of
complaint was null and void. Bertuldo Hinog v. Hon. Achilles Melicor:41

In the present case, a more liberal interpretation of the rules is called for Plainly, while the payment of the prescribed docket fee is a jurisdictional
considering that, unlike Manchester, private respondent demonstrated his requirement, even its non-payment at the time of filing does not automatically
willingness to abide by the rules by paying the additional docket fees as cause the dismissal of the case, as long as the fee is paid within the applicable
required. The promulgation of the decision in Manchester must have had that prescriptive or reglementary period, more so when the party involved
sobering influence on private respondent who thus paid the additional docket demonstrates a willingness to abide by the rules prescribing such payment.
fee as ordered by the respondent court. It triggered his change of stance by Thus, when insufficient filing fees were initially paid by the plaintiffs and
manifesting his willingness to pay such additional docket fee as may be ordered. there was no intention to defraud the government, the Manchester rule
does not apply. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied; citations omitted)
Nevertheless, petitioners contend that the docket fee that was paid is still
insufficient considering the total amount of the claim. This is a matter which the In the case at bar, respondent merely relied on the assessment made by the
clerk of court of the lower court and/or his duly authorized docket clerk or clerk clerk of court which turned out to be incorrect. Under the circumstances, the
in charge should determine and, thereafter, if any amount is found due, he must clerk of court has the responsibility of reassessing what respondent must pay
require the private respondent to pay the same. within the prescriptive period, failing which the complaint merits dismissal.

Thus, the Court rules as follows: Parenthetically, in the complaint, respondent prayed for "accrued interest…
subsequent to August 15, 1998 until fully paid." The complaint having been filed
1. It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate on September 7, 1998, respondent's claim includes the interest from August 16,
initiatory pleading, but the payment of the prescribed docket 1998 until such date of filing.
fee, that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject-
matter or nature of the action. Where the filing of the initiatory Respondent did not, however, pay the filing fee corresponding to its claim for
pleading is not accompanied by payment of the docket fee, the interest from August 16, 1998 until the filing of the complaint on September 7,
court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time 1998. As priorly discussed, this is required under Rule 141, as amended by
but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or Administrative Circular No. 11-94, which was the rule applicable at the time.
reglementary period. Thus, as the complaint currently stands, respondent cannot claim the interest
from August 16, 1998 until September 7, 1998, unless respondent is allowed by
2. The same rule applies to permissive counterclaims, third- motion to amend its complaint within a reasonable time and specify the precise
party claims and similar pleadings, which shall not be amount of interest petitioners owe from August 16, 1998 to September 7,
considered filed until and unless the filing fee prescribed 199842 and pay the corresponding docket fee therefor.
therefor is paid. The court may also allow payment of said fee
within a reasonable time but also in no case beyond its With respect to the interest accruing after the filing of the complaint, the same
applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. can only be determined after a final judgment has been handed down.
Respondent cannot thus be made to pay the corresponding docket fee therefor.
3. Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over a claim by Pursuant, however, to Section 2, Rule 141, as amended by Administrative
the filing of the appropriate pleading and payment of the Circular No. 11-94, respondent should be made to pay additional fees which
prescribed filing fee but, subsequently, the judgment awards a shall constitute a lien in the event the trial court adjudges that it is entitled to
claim not specified in the pleading, or if specified the same has interest accruing after the filing of the complaint.
been left for determination by the court, the additional filing
fee therefor shall constitute a lien on the judgment. It shall be Sec. 2. Fees as lien. - Where the court in its final judgment awards a claim not
the responsibility of the Clerk of Court or his duly authorized alleged, or a relief different or more than that claimed in the pleading, the party
deputy to enforce said lien and assess and collect the additional concerned shall pay the additional fees which shall constitute a lien on the
fee.40 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
judgment in satisfaction of said lien. The clerk of court shall assess and collect
the corresponding fees.

In Ayala Corporation v. Madayag,43 in interpreting the third rule laid down in

Sun Insurance regarding awards of claims not specified in the pleading, this
Court held that the same refers only to damages arising after the filing of the
complaint or similar pleading as to which the additional filing fee therefor
shall constitute a lien on the judgment.

… The amount of any claim for damages, therefore, arising on or before the filing
of the complaint or any pleading should be specified. While it is true that the
determination of certain damages as exemplary or corrective damages is left to
the sound discretion of the court, it is the duty of the parties claiming such
damages to specify the amount sought on the basis of which the court may make
a proper determination, and for the proper assessment of the appropriate
docket fees. The exception contemplated as to claims not specified or to
claims although specified are left for determination of the court is limited
only to any damages that may arise after the filing of the complaint or
similar pleading for then it will not be possible for the claimant to specify
nor speculate as to the amount thereof.44 (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied; citation omitted)1avvphi1.zw+

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED in part. The July 25, 2001 Decision and
the December 18, 2001 Resolution of the Court Appeals are hereby MODIFIED.
The Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City is ordered to
reassess and determine the docket fees that should be paid by respondent, BNP,
in accordance with the Decision of this Court, and direct respondent to pay the
same within fifteen (15) days, provided the applicable prescriptive or
reglementary period has not yet expired. Thereafter, the trial court is ordered to
proceed with the case with utmost dispatch.

SO ORDERED.