EN BANC G.R. Nos. 79937-38 February 13, 1989 SUN INSURANCE OFFICE, LTD., SIOL!, E.".

#$ILI##S a%& D.'. (AR"), petitioners, vs. $ON. *A+I*IANO C. ASUNCION, #res,&,%- 'u&-e, "ra%./ 101, Re-,o%a2 Tr,a2 Cour3, 4ue5o% C,3y a%& *ANUEL C$UA U) #O TIONG, respondents. Romulo, Mabanta, Buenaventura, Sayoc & De los Angeles Law Offices for petitioners. an!uatco, Oreta, an!uatco, Berenguer & Sanvicente Law Offices for private respon"ent.

Onl! the a,ount of 1"$<.<< was paid b! private respondent as docket fee which pro,pted petitioners: counsel to raise his objection. 'aid objection was disregarded b! respondent 7udge 7ose 1. Castro who was then presiding over said case. 0pon the order of this Court, the records of said case together with twent!4two other cases assigned to different branches of the -egional .rial Court of 2ue3on Cit! which were under investigation for under4assess,ent of docket fees were trans,itted to this Court. .he Court thereafter returned the said records to the trial court with the directive that the! be re4raffled to the other judges in 2ue3on Cit!, to the e9clusion of 7udge Castro. Civil Case No. 24&$$55 was re4raffled to Branch $<&, a sala which was then vacant. On October $;, $%#;, the Court en banc issued a -esolution in Ad,inistrative Case No. #;4$<4#5;"4-.C directing the judges in said cases to reassess the docket fees and that in case of deficienc!, to order its pa!,ent. .he -esolution also requires all clerks of court to issue certificates of re4assess,ent of docket fees. All litigants were likewise required to specif! in their pleadings the a,ount sought to be recovered in their co,plaints. On 6ece,ber $=, $%#;, 7udge Antonio 1. 'olano, to whose sala Civil Case No. 24&$$55 was te,poraril! assigned, issuedan order to the Clerk of Court instructing hi, to issue a certificate of assess,ent of the docket fee paid b! private respondent and, in case of deficienc!, to include the sa,e in said certificate. On 7anuar! 5, $%#&, to forestall a default, a cautionar! answer was filed b! petitioners. On August ><,$%#&, an a,ended co,plaint was filed b! private respondent including the two additional defendants aforestated. 7udge /a9i,iano C. Asuncion, to who, Civil Case No. 2&$$55 was thereafter assigned, after his assu,ption into office on 7anuar! $=, $%#=, issued a 'upple,ental Order requiring the parties in the case to co,,ent on the Clerk of Court:s letter4report signif!ing her difficult! in co,pl!ing with the -esolution of this Court of October $;, $%#; since the pleadings filed b! private respondent did not indicate the e9act a,ount sought to be recovered. On 7anuar! ">, $%#=, private respondent filed a ?Co,pliance? and a ?-e4A,ended Co,plaint? stating therein a clai, of ?not less than 1l<,<<<,<<<. << as actual co,pensator! da,ages? in the pra!er. (n the bod! of the said second a,ended co,plaint however, private respondent alleges actual and co,pensator! da,ages and attorne!:s fees in the total a,ount of about 1&&,=<$,=">.5<. On 7anuar! "&, $%#=, 7udge Asuncion issued another Order ad,itting the second a,ended co,plaint and stating therein that the sa,e constituted proper co,pliance with $

GANCA)CO, J.: 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. On ebruar! "#, $%#&, petitioner 'un (nsurance Office, )td. *'(O) for brevit!+ filed a co,plaint with the -egional .rial Court of /akati, /etro /anila for the consignation of a pre,iu, refund on a fire insurance polic! with a pra!er for the judicial declaration of its nullit! against private respondent /anuel 0! 1o .iong. 1rivate respondent as declared in default for failure to file the required answer within the regle,entar! period. On the other hand, on /arch "#, $%#&, private respondent filed a co,plaint in the -egional .rial Court of 2ue3on Cit! for the refund of pre,iu,s and the issuance of a writ of preli,inar! attach,ent which was docketed as Civil Case No. 24&$$55, initiall! against petitioner '(O), and thereafter including E.B. 1hilipps and 6.7. 8arb! as additional defendants. .he co,plaint sought, a,ong others, the pa!,ent of actual, co,pensator!, ,oral, e9e,plar! and liquidated da,ages, attorne!:s fees, e9penses of litigation and costs of the suit. Although the pra!er in the co,plaint did not quantif! the a,ount of da,ages sought said a,ount ,a! be inferred fro, the bod! of the co,plaint to be about ift! /illion 1esos *1;<,<<<,<<<.<<+.

the -esolution of this Court and that a cop! thereof should be furnished the Clerk of Court for the reassess,ent of the docket fees. .he reassess,ent b! the Clerk of Court based on private respondent:s clai, of ?not less than 1$<,<<<,<<<.<< as actual and co,pensator! da,ages? a,ounted to 1>%,5#=.<< as docket fee. .his was subsequentl! paid b! private respondent. 1etitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals questioning the said order of 7udie Asuncion dated 7anuar! "&, $%#=. On April "&, $%#=, private respondent filed a supple,ental co,plaint alleging an additional clai, of 1"<,<<<,<<<.<< as d.q,ages so the total clai, a,ounts to about 1=&,=<$,=">.5<. On October $=, $%#=, or so,e seven ,onths after filing the supple,ental co,plaint, the private respondent paid the additional docket fee of 1#<,>%=.<<. 1 On August $>, $%#5, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision ruling, a,ong others, as follows@ 8AE-E O-E, judg,ent is hereb! rendered@ $. 6en!ing due course to the petition in CA4B.-. '1 No. $, <%5$; insofar as it seeks annul,ent of the order *a+ den!ing petitioners: ,otion to dis,iss the co,plaint, as a,ended, and *b+ granting the writ of preli,inar! attach,ent, but giving due course to the portion thereof questioning the reassess,ent of the docketing fee, and requiring the Aonorable respondent Court to reassess the docketing fee to be paid b! private respondent on the basis of the a,ount of 1";,&<$,5<5.<<. 6 Aence, the instant petition. 6uring the pendenc! of this petition and in confor,it! with the said judg,ent of respondent court, private respondent paid the additional docket fee of 1=",&>".%< on April "#, $%##. 3

.he ,ain thrust of the petition is that the Court of Appeals erred in not finding that the lower court did not acquire jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 24&$$55 on the ground of nonpa!,ent of the correct and proper docket fee. 1etitioners allege that while it ,a! be true that private respondent had paid the a,ount of 1$#",#"&.%< as docket fee as herein4 above related, and considering that the total a,ount sought to be recovered in the a,ended and supple,ental co,plaint is 1=&,=<$,=">.5< the docket fee that should be paid b! private respondent is 1";5,#$<.&%, ,ore or less. Not having paid the sa,e, petitioners contend that the co,plaint should be dis,issed and all incidents arising therefro, should be annulled. (n support of their theor!, petitioners cite the latest ruling of the Court in Manc#ester Development $orporation vs. $A, 1 as follows@ .he Court acquires jurisdiction over an! case onl! upon the pa!,ent of the prescribed docket fee. An a,end,ent of the co,plaint or si,ilar pleading will not thereb! vest jurisdiction in the Court, ,uch less the pa!,ent of the docket fee based on the a,ounts sought in the a,ended pleading. .he ruling in the /agaspi Case in so far as it is inconsistent with this pronounce,ent is overturned and reversed. On the other hand, private respondent clai,s that the ruling in Manc#ester cannot appl! retroactivel! to Civil Case No. 2&$$55 for at the ti,e said civil case was filed in court there was no such Manc#ester ruling as !et. urther, private respondent avers that what is applicable is the ruling of this $ourt in Magaspi v. Ramolete, 7 wherein this Court held that the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the case even if the docket fee paid was insufficient. .he contention that Manc#ester cannot appl! retroactivel! to this case is untenable. 'tatutes regulating the procedure of the courts will be construed as applicable to actions pending and undeter,ined at the ti,e of their passage. 1rocedural laws are retrospective in that sense and to that e9tent. 8 (n La%aro vs. &n"encia an" An"res, 7 this Court held that the pa!,ent of the full a,ount of the docket fee is an indispensable step for the perfection of an appeal. (n a forcible entr! and detainer case before the justice of the peace court of /anaoag, 1angasinan, after notice of a judg,ent dis,issing the case, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with said court but he deposited onl! 1#.<< for the docket fee, instead of 1$=.<< as required, within the regle,entar! period of appeal of five *;+ da!s after receiving notice of judg,ent. 1laintiff deposited the additional 1#.<< to co,plete the a,ount of the docket fee onl! fourteen *$&+ da!s later. On the basis of these facts, this court held that the "

Court of irst (nstance did notacquire jurisdiction to hear and deter,ine the appeal as the appeal was not thereb! perfected. (n Lee vs. Republic, 8 the petitioner filed a verified declaration of intention to beco,e a ilipino citi3en b! sending it through registered ,ail to the Office of the 'olicitor Beneral in $%;> but the required filing fee was paid onl! in $%;=, barel! ;C" ,onths prior to the filing of the petition for citi3enship. .his Court ruled that the declaration was not filed in accordance with the legal require,ent that such declaration should be filed at least one !ear before the filing of the petition for citi3enship. Citing La%aro, this Court concluded that the filing of petitioner:s declaration of intention on October ">, $%;> produced no legal effect until the required filing fee was paid on /a! ">, $%;=. (n Malimit vs. Degamo, 9 the sa,e principles enunciated in )a3aro and )ee were applied. (t was an original petition for 'uo warranto contesting the right to office of proclai,ed candidates which was ,ailed, addressed to the clerk of the Court of irst (nstance, within the one4week period after the procla,ation as provided therefor b! law. 10 Aowever, the required docket fees were paid onl! after the e9piration of said period. Consequentl!, this Court held that the date of such pa!,ent ,ust be dee,ed to be the real date of filing of aforesaid petition and not the date when it was ,ailed. Again, in (arica vs, )as'ue%, 11 this Court reiterated the rule that the docket fee ,ust be paid before a court will act on a petition or co,plaint. Aowever, we also held that said rule is not applicable when petitioner seeks the probate of several wills of the sa,e decedent as he is not required to file a separate action for each will but instead he ,a! have other wills probated in the sa,e special proceeding then pending before the sa,e court. .hen in Magaspi, 16 this Court reiterated the ruling in Malimit and Lee that a case is dee,ed filed onl! upon pa!,ent of the docket fee regardless of the actual date of its filing in court. 'aid case involved a co,plaint for recover! of ownership and possession of a parcel of land with da,ages filed in the Court of irst (nstance of Cebu. 0pon the pa!,ent of 1=<.<< for the docket fee and 1$<.<< for the sheriffs fee, the co,plaint was docketed as Civil Case No. -4$$##". .he pra!er of the co,plaint sought that the .ransfer Certificate of .itle issued in the na,e of the defendant be declared as null and void. (t was also pra!ed that plaintiff be declared as owner thereof to who, the proper title should be issued, and that defendant be ,ade to pa! ,onthl! rentals of 1>,;<<.<< fro, 7une ", $%&# up to the ti,e the propert! is delivered to plaintiff, 1;<<,<<<.<< as

,oral da,ages, attorne!:s fees in the a,ount of 1";<,<<<.<<, the costs of the action and e9e,plar! da,ages in the a,ount of 1;<<,<<<.<<. .he defendant then filed a ,otion to co,pel the plaintiff to pa! the correct a,ount of the docket fee to which an opposition was filed b! the plaintiff alleging that the action was for the recover! of a parcel of land so the docket fee ,ust be based on its assessed value and that the a,ount of 1=<.<< was the correct docketing fee. .he trial court ordered the plaintiff to pa! 1>,$<&.<< as filing fee. .he plaintiff then filed a ,otion to ad,it the a,ended co,plaint to include the -epublic as the defendant. (n the pra!er of the a,ended co,plaint the e9e,plar! da,ages earlier sought was eli,inated. .he a,ended pra!er ,erel! sought ,oral da,ages as the court ,a! deter,ine, attorne!:s fees of 1$<<,<<<.<< and the costs of the action. .he defendant filed an opposition to the a,ended co,plaint. .he opposition notwithstanding, the a,ended co,plaint was ad,itted b! the trial court. .he trial court reiterated its order for the pa!,ent of the additional docket fee which plaintiff assailed and then challenged before this Court. 1laintiff alleged that he paid the total docket fee in the a,ount of 1=<.<< and that if he has to pa! the additional fee it ,ust be based on the a,ended co,plaint. .he question posed, therefore, was whether or not the plaintiff ,a! be considered to have filed the case even if the docketing fee paid was not sufficient. (n Magaspi, 8e reiterated the rule that the case was dee,ed filed onl! upon the pa!,ent of the correct a,ount for the docket fee regardless of the actual date of the filing of the co,plaintD that there was an honest difference of opinion as to the correct a,ount to be paid as docket fee in that as the action appears to be one for the recover! of propert! the docket fee of 1=<.<< was correctD and that as the action is also one, for da,ages, 8e upheld the assess,ent of the additional docket fee based on the da,ages alleged in the a,ended co,plaint as against the assess,ent of the trial court which was based on the da,ages alleged in the original co,plaint. Aowever, as aforecited, this Court overturned Magaspi in Manc#ester. Manc#ester involves an action for torts and da,ages and specific perfor,ance with a pra!er for the issuance of a te,porar! restraining order, etc. .he pra!er in said case is for the issuance of a writ of preli,inar! prohibitor! injunction during the pendenc! of the action against the defendants: announced forfeiture of the su, of 1> /illion paid b! the plaintiffs for the propert! in question, the attach,ent of such propert! of defendants that ,a! be sufficient to satisf! an! judg,ent that ,a! be rendered, and, after hearing, the issuance >

of an order requiring defendants to e9ecute a contract of purchase and sale of the subject propert! and annul defendants: illegal forfeiture of the ,one! of plaintiff. (t was also pra!ed that the defendants be ,ade to pa! the plaintiff jointl! and severall!, actual, co,pensator! and e9e,plar! da,ages as well as ";E of said a,ounts as ,a! be proved during the trial for attorne!:s fees. .he plaintiff also asked the trial court to declare the tender of pa!,ent of the purchase price of plaintiff valid and sufficient for purposes of pa!,ent, and to ,ake the injunction per,anent. .he a,ount of da,ages sought is not specified in the pra!er although the bod! of the co,plaint alleges the total a,ount of over 15# /illon allegedl! suffered b! plaintiff. 0pon the filing of the co,plaint, the plaintiff paid the a,ount of onl! 1&$<.<< for the docket fee based on the nature of the action for specific perfor,ance where the a,ount involved is not capable of pecuniar! esti,ation. Aowever, it was obvious fro, the allegations of the co,plaint as well as its designation that the action was one for da,ages and specific perfor,ance. .hus, this court held the plaintiff ,ust be assessed the correct docket fee co,puted against the a,ount of da,ages of about 15# /illion, although the sa,e was not spelled out in the pra!er of the co,plaint. /eanwhile, plaintiff through another counsel, with leave of court, filed an a,ended co,plaint on 'epte,ber $", $%#; b! the inclusion of another co4plaintiff and eli,inating an! ,ention of the a,ount of da,ages in the bod! of the co,plaint. .he pra!er in the original co,plaint was ,aintained. On October $;, $%#;, this Court ordered the re4assess,ent of the docket fee in the said case and other cases that were investigated. On Nove,ber $", $%#;, the trial court directed the plaintiff to rectif! the a,ended co,plaint b! stating the a,ounts which the! were asking for. .his plaintiff did as instructed. (n the bod! of the co,plaint the a,ount of da,ages alleged was reduced to 1$<,<<<,<<<.<< but still no a,ount of da,ages was specified in the pra!er. 'aid a,ended co,plaint was ad,itted. Appl!ing the principle in Magaspi that ?the case is dee,ed filed onl! upon pa!,ent of the docket fee regardless of the actual date of filing in court,? this Court held that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the case b! pa!,ent of onl! 1&$<.<< for the docket fee. Neither can the a,end,ent of the co,plaint thereb! vest jurisdiction upon the Court. or all legal purposes there was no such original co,plaint dul! filed which could be a,ended. Consequentl!, the order ad,itting the a,ended co,plaint and all subsequent proceedings and actions taken b! the trial court were declared null and void.
13

.he present case, as above discussed, is a,ong the several cases of under4assess,ent of docket fee which were investigated b! this Court together with Manc#ester. .he facts and circu,stances of this case are si,ilar to Manc#ester. (n the bod! of the original co,plaint, the total a,ount of da,ages sought a,ounted to about 1;< /illion. (n the pra!er, the a,ount of da,ages asked for was not stated. .he action was for the refund of the pre,iu, and the issuance of the writ of preli,inar! attach,ent with da,ages. .he a,ount of onl! 1"$<.<< was paid for the docket fee. On 7anuar! ">, $%#=, private respondent filed an a,ended co,plaint wherein in the pra!er it is asked that he be awarded no less than 1$<,<<<,<<<.<< as actual and e9e,plar! da,ages but in the bod! of the co,plaint the a,ount of his pecuniar! clai, is appro9i,atel! 1&&,=<$,=">.5<. 'aid a,ended co,plaint was ad,itted and the private respondent was reassessed the additional docket fee of 1>%,5#=.<< based on his pra!er of not less than 1$<,<<<,<<<.<< in da,ages, which he paid. On April "&, $%#=, private respondent filed a supple,ental co,plaint alleging an additional clai, of 1"<,<<<,<<<.<< in da,ages so that his total clai, is appro9i,atel! 1=&,=<$,="<.5<. On October $=, $%#=, private respondent paid an additional docket fee of 1#<,>%=.<<. After the pro,ulgation of the decision of the respondent court on August >$, $%#5 wherein private respondent was ordered to be reassessed for additional docket fee, and during the pendenc! of this petition, and after the pro,ulgation of Manc#ester, on April "#, $%##, private respondent paid an additional docket fee of 1=",$>".%". Although private respondent appears to have paid a total a,ount of 1$#",#"&.%< for the docket fee considering the total a,ount of his clai, in the a,ended and supple,ental co,plaint a,ounting to about 1=&,=<$,="<.5<, petitioner insists that private respondent ,ust pa! a docket fee of 1";5,#$<.&%. .he principle in Manc#ester could ver! well be applied in the present case. .he pattern and the intent to defraud the govern,ent of the docket fee due it is obvious not onl! in the filing of the original co,plaint but also in the filing of the second a,ended co,plaint. Aowever, in Manc#ester, petitioner did not pa! an! additional docket fee untilF the case was decided b! this Court on /a! 5, $%#5. .hus, in Manc#ester, due to the fraud co,,itted on the govern,ent, this Court held that the court a 'uo did not acquire jurisdiction over the case and that the a,ended co,plaint could not have been ad,itted inas,uch as the original co,plaint was null and void.

&

(n the present case, a ,ore liberal interpretation of the rules is called for considering that, unlike /anchester, private respondent de,onstrated his willingness to abide b! the rules b! pa!ing the additional docket fees as required. .he pro,ulgation of the decision in /anchester ,ust have had that sobering influence on private respondent who thus paid the additional docket fee as ordered b! the respondent court. (t triggered his change of stance b! ,anifesting his willingness to pa! such additional docket fee as ,a! be ordered. Nevertheless, petitioners contend that the docket fee that was paid is still insufficient considering the total a,ount of the clai,. .his is a ,atter which the clerk of court of the lower court andGor his dul! authori3ed docket clerk or clerk in4charge should deter,ine and, thereafter, if an! a,ount is found due, he ,ust require the private respondent to pa! the sa,e. .hus, the Court rules as follows@ $. (t is not si,pl! the filing of the co,plaint or appropriate initiator! pleading, but the pa!,ent of the prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject ,atter or nature of the action. 8here the filing of the initiator! pleading is not acco,panied b! pa!,ent of the docket fee, the court ,a! allow pa!,ent of the fee within a reasonable ti,e but in no case be!ond the applicable prescriptive or regle,entar! period. ". .he sa,e rule applies to per,issive counterclai,s, third part! clai,s and si,ilar pleadings, which shall not be considered filed until and unless the filing fee prescribed therefor is paid. .he court ,a! also allow pa!,ent of said fee within a reasonable ti,e but also in no case be!ond its applicable prescriptive or regle,entar! period. >. 8here the trial court acquires jurisdiction over a clai, b! the filing of the appropriate pleading and pa!,ent of the prescribed filing fee but, subsequentl!, the judg,ent awards a clai, not specified in the pleading, or if specified the sa,e has been left for deter,ination b! the court, the additional filing fee therefor shall constitute a lien on the judg,ent. (t shall be the responsibilit! of the Clerk of Court or his dul! authori3ed deput! to enforce said lien and assess and collect the additional fee. 8AE-E O-E, the petition is 6('/(''E6 for lack of ,erit. .he Clerk of Court of the court a 'uo is hereb! instructed to reassess and deter,ine the additional filing fee that should be paid b! private respondent considering the total a,ount of the clai, sought in

the original co,plaint and the supple,ental co,plaint as ,a! be gleaned fro, the allegations and the pra!er thereof and to require private respondent to pa! the deficienc!, if an!, without pronounce,ent as to costs. 'O O-6E-E6.