G.R. Nos.
79937-38 February 13, 1989
SUN INSURANCE OFFICE, LTD., (SIOL), E.B. PHILIPPS and D.J.
WARBY, petitioners,
vs.
HON. MAXIMIANO C. ASUNCION, Presiding Judge, Branch 104, Regional Trial
Court, Quezon City and MANUEL CHUA UY PO TIONG, respondents.
NATURE OF THE CASE: Again the Court is asked to resolve the issue of whether or
not a court acquires jurisdiction over a case when the correct and proper docket fee has
not been paid.
FACTS: Petitioner Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. (SIOL for brevity) filed a complaint with
the RTC of Makati for the consignation of a premium refund on a fire insurance policy
against private respondent Manuel Uy Po Tiong. Private respondent as declared in
default for failure to file the required answer within the reglementary period.
On the other hand, private respondent filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City for the refund of premiums and the issuance of a writ of preliminary
attachment against petitioner SIOL, and thereafter including E.B. Philipps and D.J.
Warby as additional defendants. In the complaint did not quantify the amount of
damages sought said amount may be inferred from the body of the complaint to be
about Fifty Million Pesos (P50,000,000.00).
Only the amount of P210.00 was paid by private respondent as docket fee which
prompted petitioners' counsel to raise his objection but was disregarded by respondent
Judge Jose P. Castro who was then presiding over said case.
The Court en banc issued a Resolution in directing the judges in said cases to reassess
the docket fees and that in case of deficiency, to order its payment.
to forestall a default, petitioners filed a cautionary answer. And an amended complaint
was filed by private respondent including the two additional defendants.
Judge Maximiano C. Asuncion, issued a Supplemental Order requiring the parties in the
case to comment on the Clerk of Court's letter-report signifying her difficulty in
complying with the Resolution of this Court since the pleadings filed by private
respondent did not indicate the exact amount sought to be recovered.
private respondent filed a "Compliance" and a "Re-Amended Complaint" stating a claim
of "not less than Pl0,000,000. 00 as actual compensatory damages". In the body of the
said second amended complaint, private respondent alleges actual and compensatory
damages and attorney's fees in the total amount of about P44,601,623.70.
The reassessment by the Clerk of Court amounted to P39,786.00 as docket fee. This
was subsequently paid by private respondent.
Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals questioning the
said order of Judie Asuncion.
private respondent filed a supplemental complaint for an additional claim of
P20,000,000.00 as damages so the total claim amounts to about P64,601,623.70. The
private respondent paid the additional docket fee of P80,396.00. 1
On August 13, 1987, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision ruling in favor of the
private respondent
Hence, the instant petition.
ISSUE: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not finding that the lower court did not
acquire jurisdiction over Case on the ground of nonpayment of the correct and proper
docket fee.
HELD: NO
In Magaspi, the Court reiterated the rule that the case was deemed filed only upon the
payment of the correct amount for the docket fee regardless of the actual date of the
filing of the complaint.
However, the Supreme Court overturned Magaspi in Manchester.
The facts and circumstances of this case are similar to Manchester. The pattern and the
intent to defraud the government of the docket fee due it is obvious not only in the filing
of the original complaint but also in the filing of the second amended complaint.
However, in Manchester, petitioner did not pay any additional docket fee until the case
was decided by this Court. Thus, in Manchester, due to the fraud committed on the
government, this Court held that the court a quo did not acquire jurisdiction over the
case and that the amended complaint could not have been admitted inasmuch as the
original complaint was null and void.
In the present case, a more liberal interpretation of the rules is called for considering
that, unlike Manchester, private respondent demonstrated his willingness to abide by
the rules by paying the additional docket fees as required.
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 clerk of court of the
lower court and/or his duly authorized docket clerk or clerk in-charge should determine
and, thereafter, if any amount is found due, he must require the private respondent to
pay the same.
Thus, the Court rules as follows:
1. It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading, but the
payment of the prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the
subject matter or nature of the action.
2. Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over a claim by the filing of the appropriate
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 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 the additional fee.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Clerk of Court of the
court a quo is hereby instructed to reassess and determine the additional filing fee that
should be paid by private respondent considering the total amount of the claim sought in
the original complaint and the supplemental complaint as may be gleaned from the
allegations and the prayer thereof and to require private respondent to pay the
deficiency, if any, without pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
