Civil Procedure Notes Compiled University of San Carlos College of Law

CIVIL PROCEDURE NOTES COMPILED UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS COLLEGE OF LAW
39
FACTS: The case was for recovery of land with damages. So it is not purely for
damages. So the amount of filing fee is assessed based on the assessed value of the
land because it is a real action, which the plaintiff paid.
Defendant moved to dismiss based on MANCHESTER because the plaintiff did not
specify in the complaint how much damages he was claiming. Now the RTC of Tagum
denies the motion to dismiss. The defendant goes to the SC citing MANCHESTER.
Of course the SC said that the Manchester ruling was no longer controlling because of
Sun Insurance.
But it enunciated another rule.
HELD: “Where the action involves real property and a related claim for damages as
well, the legal fees shall be assessed on the basis of both:
a) the value of the property and
b) the total amount of related damages sought.
The court acquires jurisdiction over the action if the filing of the initiatory pleading is
accompanied by the payment of the requisite fees, or, if the fees are not paid at the time
of the filing of the pleading, as of the time of full payment of the fees within such
reasonable time as the court may grant, unless, of course, prescription has set in the
meantime.”
In other words, the total docket fee must be based on the assessed value of the land
and for the damages. Thus:
1. If the docket fee for the recovery of land is paid but none for the damages, do not
dismiss the entire case! Just do not consider the claim for the damages. Or,
2. second option, citing SUN INSURANCE, give him reasonable time to pay the
balance.
While Sun Insurance relaxed the rule (as to how or when to complete the payment), it
did not however, effect any change in the rule that it is not only the filing of the
complaint but also the payment of the docket fee that is necessary for the acquisition of
the jurisdiction of the court over the complaint filed. (Gensoli & Co. v. NLRC, 289 SCRA
407, 413 [1998]). If the filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by payment of
the docket fees, the court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in
no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. (Colarina v. CA, 303
SCRA 647, 654 [1999])
Other interesting cases on docket fees.
No “file now, pay later” policy
FILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORP vs. COURT OF APPEALS – 171 SCRA 674
[1989]
FACTS: Adrian dela Paz sued all oil companies (Shell, Caltex, Mobil, etc.) of the
Philippines for infringement of patent with prayer for the payment of reasonable
compensation for damages. According to him, these companies used in their operation
a certain type of machine which he claimed he invented. His patent was infringed. Thus,
all these companies are all liable to him for royalties. The estimated yearly royalty due
him is P236,572. Since the violation has been for many years already, his claims
reached millions. The trial court ordered him to pay P945,636.90 as docket fee. He had
no money so he questioned it. The trial court ruled:
“We will allow you to file the case and the docket fee is deductible from whatever
judgment of damages shall be awarded by the court.”
HELD: There is no such thing as file now pay later. No justification can be found to
convert such payment to something akin to a contingent fee which would depend on the
result of the case.
“Filing fees are intended to take care of court expenses in the handling of cases in
terms of cost of supplies, use of equipments, salaries and fringe benefits of personnel,
etc., computed as to man hours used in handling of each case. The payment of said
fees therefore, cannot be made dependent on the result of the action taken, without
entailing tremendous losses to the government and to the judiciary in particular.”
Q: What is the remedy of the plaintiff if he/she cannot really pay the filing fee?
A: Have himself declared by the court as a pauper litigant.
LACSON vs. REYES - 182 SCRA 729
FACTS: There was a case filed and then the lawyer filed a motion to direct the plaintiff
to pay him his attorney’s fees – a motion for payment of attorney’s fees.
Issue: Is the lawyer required to pay a filing fee?
HELD: Yes. “It may be true that the claim for attorney's fees was but an incident in the
main case, still, it is not an escape valve from the payment of docket fees because as in
all actions, whether separate or as an offshoot of a pending proceeding, the payment of
docket fees is mandatory. The docket fee should be paid before the court would validly
act on the motion.”
SUSON vs. COURT OF APPEALS - 278 SCRA 284 [August 21, 1997)
FACTS: Mortz filed a case against Charles in Leyte. After filing, the court dismissed the
case because it should be filed in Cebu. Mortz wrote a letter to the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA) asking that the docket fee paid in Leyte be considered applicable
to Cebu. OCA granted his request.

Civil Procedure Notes Compiled University of San Carlos College of Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Civil Procedure Notes Compiled University of San Carlos College of Law

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Civil Procedure Notes Compiled University of San Carlos College of Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CIVIL PROCEDURE NOTES COMPILED UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS COLLEGE OF LAW

You might also like