SPS. GO v.

TONG
G.R. No. 151942; November 27, 2003
Ponente: Panganiban, J.

DOCTRINE: While the payment of the prescribed docket fee is a jurisdictional

requirement, even its nonpayment at the time of filing does not automatically cause the
dismissal of the case, as long as the fee is paid within the applicable prescriptive or
reglementary period.

FACTS:
Petitioners, Spouses Go, purchased a cashier’s check in favor of private respondent, Tong, as
settlement for a dissolved informal business partnership among them. The check bore the
words “Final Payment/Quitclaim” which were erased when he presented it for payment; hence,
the check was not honored.

When he asked for a replacement check from the petitioners, his request was denied prompting
him to file a complaint in the Manila RTC. The petitioners argued that the private respondent
maliciously erased the words “Final Payment/Quitclaim” which justified the denial. Shortly after,
the son of Spouses Go filed a falsification case against the private respondent but was
dismissed by the Manila Prosecutor’s Office.

Because the said criminal case caused the private respondent damages, he filed a Motion for
Leave to File a Supplemental Complaint against the petitioner increasing the amount of moral
and exemplary damages from Php 2.5 million to Php 55 million together with actual damages
worth Php 58,075. The Motion was granted by the RTC.

The petitioners then filed a Motion for Reconsideration that the private respondent cannot
proceed with his Supplemental Complaint without paying the docket fee and legal fees worth
Php 55 million. However, in the interest of justice and because of the huge amount involved, the
RTC issued an order allowing the private respondent to pay the aforementioned docket and
legal fees in a staggered manner with a first deposit of Php 25,000 and Php 20,000 every month
thereafter.

The petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA assailing grave abuse of discretion on
the part of the RTC for allowing the payment of docket fees on a staggered basis. The appellate
court denied the petition bringing the case at bar before the SC.

ISSUE/S:
W/N the RTC order allowing the staggered payment of docket fees was valid? (YES)

RULING:
The Supreme Court cited Sun Insurance Office Ltd. v. Asuncion where it held that when the
initiatory pleading is not accompanied by payment of the docket fee, the court may allow
payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or
reglementary period. Such consideration may also be given when the involved party
demonstrates a willingness to abide by the rules prescribing such payment.

In the case at bar, the cause of action of the private respondent was supposed to prescribe in 4
years within which period he was allowed to pay the corresponding docket fees. However, he
paid them fully in just a year thereby showing compliance to the rules and to the doctrine in Sun
Insurance. Hence, the RTC did not act in grave abuse of discretion.

DISPOSITION:
The Petition is DENIED and the assailed Order AFFIRMED.