Search next digest...

Message from the author

Time is valuable and you may not always have the time to go through all the cases for your study or practice of law. Before you
proceed to read this digest, look at its “Subject” and “Topic” to make sure that you are reading the correct digest. One case may
have multiple digests depending on the specific topic tackled.

While there will never be a substitute for reading the full text of a case, I hope that the LEXTER digests can provide you a focused
guide and assist you in keeping abreast of jurisprudence. Good luck!

Do-All Metals Industries, Inc. v. Security Bank Corp.

G.R. No. 176339
10 January 2011

SUBJECT : Remedial Law

TOPIC : Filing Fees

FACTS :

Security Bank (the “Bank”) owned a building and lot (the “Property”) in Pasig City. The Bank entered into a
lease agreement with Do-All Metals Industries, Inc. (“DMI”). Under the terms of the lease, the Bank retained
the right to pre-terminate the lease, provided that should the Bank decide to sell the Property, DMI shall
have the right to first refusal.

Before the end of the lease term, the Bank gave notice to DMI that it was pre-terminating the lease and
offered DMI the right of first refusal. The Bank and DMI could not agree on the purchase price for the
Property. DMI claimed that the Bank subsequently padlocked the entrances to the Property and stationed
security guards to prevent entry. DMI claimed that it could not gain access to its movable properties inside
the Property.

DMI filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court ("RTC"), Pasig City for damages with prayer for the
issuance of a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) against the Bank to allow reentry to the Property. DMI
paid the proper filing fees for the complaint. The Bank offered no objection to the issuance of the TRO and
allowed DMI to reenter. Subsequently, DMI claimed that upon reentering the Property, it was unable to find
the movable properties that it left there.

DMI filed a supplemental complaint alleging that the Bank surreptitiously took its properties, resulting in
additional actual damages of over Php27 million. No additional filing fees were paid together with the filing
of the supplemental complaint.

The RTC rendered a decision in favor of DMI, awarding damages including actual damages of
Php27,974.564.00. The Bank moved for reconsideration of the decision, questioning among other things
the RTC’s authority to grant damages considering plaintiffs’ failure to pay the filing fees on their
supplemental complaint.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Bank and reversed the RTC decision.

ISSUE/S :

Whether or not the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s supplemental complaint against the Bank
considering its failure to pay the filing fees on the amounts of damages alleged in the supplemental
complaint?

HELD :

No, the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the supplemental complaint.

However, the RTC acquired jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ action from the moment they filed their original
complaint accompanied by the payment of the filing fees due on the same. The plaintiffs’ non-payment of
the additional filing fees due on their additional claims did not divest the RTC of the jurisdiction it already
had over the case.

Here, the supplemental complaint specified from the beginning the actual damages that the plaintiffs
sought against the Bank. Still plaintiffs paid no filing fees on the same.

A supplemental complaint is like any complaint and the rule is that the filing fees due on a complaint need
to be paid upon its filing. The rules do not require the court to make special assessments in cases of
supplemental complaints. It is complainant’s responsibility to pay the appropriate filing fees.

Hence, the award of actual damages of Php27,974.564.00 based on the supplemental complaint is
improper for want of jurisdiction.

© 2020 Lexter Digest. All Rights Reserved. About the author