0% found this document useful (0 votes)
90 views3 pages

Tokio Marine V Jorge Valdez

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1/ 3

TOPIC Payment of Docket Fees/ Staggered Docket Fee

CASE NO. G.R. No. 150107


CASE NAME Tokio Marine Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. v Jorge Valdez
MEMBER Pierre Macalino

DOCTRINE
Input here the doctrine/s (if more than 1, pls number it)
1. Courts acquire jurisdiction only upon payment of the prescribed docket fee. The exception is when
the party is an Indigent Party (Section 21, Rule 3). The guidelines for determining whether a party
qualifies as an indigent litigant are provided in Section 19, Rule 141.
2. The litigant alone who shall execute the affidavit. The rule does not require that all members of the
litigant’s immediate family must execute sworn statements in support of the petition.

RECIT-READY DIGEST
Jorge Valdez, respondent, was a former unit manager of Tokio Marine, petitioner, and is now filing for
damages against the latter for their refusal to pay him. He applied to be an Indigent Party under Section 21,
Rule 3, which the trial court granted. It resolved that respondent is an indigent, not owning any real property
in the City of Manila or elsewhere. Hence, the court did not require him to pay docket fees which will
constitute a lien on a favorable judgement. Petitioner, among other grounds, filed a motion to dismiss the
action on the ground of non-payment of docket fees. Petitioner alleged that under the Indigent Party rule,
the immediate family of the applicant must also make an affidavit that they do not own real property nor
have sufficient income. The Supreme Court disagreed on the contention, holding that the rule explicitly
provides that it is only the litigant that is required to execute the affidavit. The proper payment of docket
fees are required for a court to acquire jurisdiction over the case. However, the exception is when the party
is an Indigent Party, in which case they are exempted from such payment. The exception applies in this
case.

FACTS
Include relevant facts only.
• Tokio Marine (petitioner) is a domestic corporation engaged in the insurance business. Jorge
Valdez (respondent) was a former unit manager of Tokio Marine pursuant to a Unit Management
Contract
• Respondent filed a complaint for damages against petitioner alleging that the latter violated the
contract by refusing to pay him. He also applied to be an Indigent Party under Section 21, Rule 3,
which was granted by the court.
• Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss on the ground, among others, that respondent did not pay the
proper docket fees. Petitioner’s motion to dismiss, and the later motion for reconsideration were
both denied. Hence, they filed a petition for certiorari with a prayer for a TRO and preliminary
injunction with the CA assailing the denial of the motion to dismiss.
• The CA granted the petition and issued a writ of preliminary injunction restraining the trial court
from conducting further proceedings. Afterwards, on the contention that he is 75 years old and
sickly, respondent filed an Urgent Notice of taking his deposition upon oral examination.
• Petitioners filed with the CA a petition to cite respondent in contempt alleging that this violated the
injunction issued by the court. Nevertheless, respondent’s deposition was taken by the notary public
and the same was filed with the CA.
• CA then rendered a decision which dismissed the petitions of petitioner and lifted the injunction
previously issued. Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, challenging
CA’s resolution.

1
ISSUE/S and HELD
1. W/N the CA was proper in denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss? YES

RATIO
1. Courts acquire jurisdiction only upon payment of the prescribed docket fee. The correct docket fees
must be paid before courts can act on a petition or complaint. The exception is when the party is an
Indigent Party (Section 21, Rule 3). The guidelines for determining whether a party qualifies as an
indigent litigant are provided in Section 19, Rule 141. Petitioners content that respondent’s motion
to litigate as an indigent is defective since it was not accompanied or supported by the affidavits of
his children, the immediate members of his family.
a. The argument lacks merit. Section 19 clearly states that it is the litigant alone who shall
execute the affidavit. The rule does not require that all members of the litigant’s immediate
family must execute sworn statements in support of the petition.
2. Petitioners contend that respondent committed forum shopping when he failed to report to the trial
court that he filed criminal cases against them.
a. The court’s held that the certification submitted by the respondent was a substantial
compliance with the rule on non-forum shopping (Section 5, Rule 7). In fact, the
certification explicitly made mention that the criminal case for estafa filed against
petitioners were filed.
3. On the issue on contempt, the court emphasized that they have always abided by the dogma that
courts must exercise their contempt powers sparingly. Contempt of court is a defiance of authority,
justice or dignity of the court. In this case, the CA dismissed the charge for indirect contempt
holding that respondent’s deposition was done in good faith. It was to clarify a misunderstanding
under a deposition done by petitioner’s counsel on respondent. Moreover, the taking of
respondent’s deposition is not part of the court proceedings to which the injunction was issued.

DISPOSTIVE PORTION
Wherefore, we DENY the petitions.

Other notes

Rule 3, SEC. 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 or the payment thereof, without prejudice to such other sanctions as the court may impose.

Rule 141, SEC. 19. Indigent litigants exempt from payment of legal fees. – INDIGENT LITIGANT (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

2
TAX DECLARATION OF MORE THAN THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P300,000.00)
SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM THE PAYMENT OF LEGAL FEES.

The legal fees shall be a lien on any judgment rendered in the case favorable to the indigent 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 nor they own any real property with the fair
value aforementioned, supported by an affidavit of a disinterested person attesting to the truth of the
litigant’s affidavit. The current tax declaration, if any, shall be attached to the litigant’s affidavit.

Any falsity in the affidavit of the 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 been incurred

You might also like