Scribd
Upload
307 views1 page

217 IBC V Legasto (Ipan - Jhon Edgar)

Petitioner challenged respondent's failure to pay correct filing fees in a case regarding a compromise agreement between the two parties. The RTC and CA denied petitioner's motions to dismiss due to lack of jurisdiction or suspend proceedings. The Supreme Court ruled that jurisdiction was properly acquired because while payment of filing fees is jurisdictional, non-payment at filing does not cause automatic dismissal if fees are paid within the period and there is willingness to follow rules on payment, as was the case here. The Court clarified that the ruling on dismissal for non-payment of fees does not apply when initial payment was insufficient but there was no intent to defraud.

Uploaded by

Jhon Edgar Ipan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
307 views1 page

217 IBC V Legasto (Ipan - Jhon Edgar)

Petitioner challenged respondent's failure to pay correct filing fees in a case regarding a compromise agreement between the two parties. The RTC and CA denied petitioner's motions to dismiss due to lack of jurisdiction or suspend proceedings. The Supreme Court ruled that jurisdiction was properly acquired because while payment of filing fees is jurisdictional, non-payment at filing does not cause automatic dismissal if fees are paid within the period and there is willingness to follow rules on payment, as was the case here. The Court clarified that the ruling on dismissal for non-payment of fees does not apply when initial payment was insufficient but there was no intent to defraud.

Uploaded by

Jhon Edgar Ipan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

217 IBC v Legasto (2006) [Filing Fees for Claims for Damages]

Ipan, Jhon Edgar

Intercontinental Broadcasting Corp. v Legasto


G.R. No. 169108
April 18, 2006

Facts: Petitioner, as First Party, and private respondent Antonio Salvador, as Second Party, entered into
a Compromise Agreement dated 22 May 1998 for the purpose of putting an end to the suit for a sum of
money before the RTC of Quezon City. The civil case, therefore, was then dismissed. On December 18,
2000, however, petitioner commenced an action to declare the aforesaid Compromise Agreement null
and void ab initio. By then already privatized and under a new management, petitioner alleged, among
other matters, that aside from its non-existent cause or object, said agreement was entered into by its
erstwhile management without the requisite approval of the PCGG. Contending that petitioner
unjustifiably refused to comply with its obligation under paragraph 4 of the selfsame Compromise
Agreement, on the other hand, private respondent filed the complaint for Specific Performance and
Damages against petitioner. Petitioner filed a motion styled as one for dismissal and/or suspension of all
proceedings in the aforesaid consolidated cases. Calling public respondent’s attention to the fact that
private respondent only paid P8,517.50 in docket fees, petitioner maintained that, rather than for specific
performance and damages as indicated in his complaint, private respondent’s cause of action was
actually one for a sum of money, the totality of the latter’s claim, as disclosed in his motion for issuance of
a writ of attachment, translated into unpaid docket fees amounting to P5,452,237.50; and, that private
respondent’s suit should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or, at the very least, suspended until
payment of the correct docket fees. RTC denied petitioner’s motion. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari
before the CA. CA found no abuse of discretion in the denial of petitioner’s motion to dismiss and/or
suspend the proceedings. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, hence a petition for review
on certiorari was filed before the Supreme Court.

Issue: Whether or not the respondent’s failure to pay the correct docket fees precludes the court from
acquiring jurisdiction.

Held: No. The Court ruled that jurisdiction was properly acquired in this case. The Court agreed that in
the case of Manchester Development Corporation v. CA, this Court held that the court acquires
jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fees. However, the ruling in
Manchester was clarified in Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. (SIOL) v. Asuncion when this Court held that in the
former there was clearly an effort to defraud the government in avoiding to pay the correct docket fees,
whereas in the latter the plaintiff demonstrated his willingness to abide by paying the additional fees as
required. Plainly, while the payment of the prescribed docket fees is a jurisdictional requirement, even its
non-payment at the time of filing does not automatically cause the dismissal of the case, as long as the
fees are 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, when insufficient filing
fees were initially paid by the plaintiffs and there was no intention to defraud the government, the
Manchester rule does not apply.

You might also like