Professional Documents
Culture Documents
18 Manchester Development Corporation V CA
18 Manchester Development Corporation V CA
*
No. L-75919. May 7, 1987.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177a9bc6b33cd688348003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/9
2/15/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 149
_______________
* EN BANC.
563
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177a9bc6b33cd688348003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/9
2/15/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 149
564
RESOLUTION
GANCAYCO, J.:
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177a9bc6b33cd688348003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/9
2/15/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 149
_______________
565
_______________
2 Supra, p. 194.
3 P. 64, Rollo.
4 Magaspi vs. Ramolete, supra, pp. 114-115.
5 Pp. 65-66, Rollo. ,
566
________________
567
________________
568
12
fee regardless of the actual date of filing in court." Thus,
in the present case the trial court did not acquire
jurisdiction over the case by the payment of only P410.00
as docket fee. Neither can the amendment of 13
the complaint
thereby vest jurisdiction upon the Court. For all legal
purposes there is no such original complaint that was duly
filed which could be amended. Consequently, the order
admitting the amended complaint and all subsequent
proceedings and actions taken by the trial court are null
and void.
The Court of Appeals therefore, aptly ruled in the
present case that the basis of assessment of the docket fee
should be the amount of damages sought in the original
complaint and not in the amended complaint.
The Court cannot close this case without making the
observation that it frowns at the practice of counsel who
filed the original complaint in this case of omitting any
specification of the amount of damages in the prayer
although the amount of over P78 million is alleged in the
body of the complaint. This is clearly intended for no other
purpose than to evade the payment of the correct filing fees
if not to mislead the docket clerk in the assessment of the
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177a9bc6b33cd688348003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/9
2/15/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 149
________________
12 Supra, 115 SCRA 204, citing Malimit vs. Degamo, G.R. No. L-17850,
Nov. 28, 1964, 12 SCRA 450, 120 Phil. 1247; Lee vs. Republic, L-15027,
Jan. 31, 1964, 10 SCRA 65.
13 Gaspar vs. Dorado, L-17884, November 29, 1965, 15 SCRA 331;
Tamayo vs. San Miguel Brewery, G.R. No. L-17449, January 30, 1964;
Rosario vs. Carandang, 96 Phil. 845; Campos Rueda Corp. vs. Hon. Judge
Bautista, et al., G.R. No. L-18452, Sept. 29,1962.
569
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177a9bc6b33cd688348003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/9
2/15/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 149
Motion denied.
——o0o——
________________
14 Supra.
570
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177a9bc6b33cd688348003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/9