G.R. No.

96724 March 22, 1991

HONESTO GENERAL, petitioner,

vs.

HON. GRADUACION REYES CLARAVALL, Judge, Regional Trial Court at Pasig, Br. 71, BENNETH THELMO
and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Benneth Thelmo filed with the Office of the Public Prosecutor of Rizal a sworn complaint accusing
Honesto General and another person of libel, and alleged that by reason of the offense he (Thelmo) had
suffered actual, moral and exemplary damages in the total sum of P100 million. The information for libel
subsequently filed with the RTC at Pasig, after preliminary investigation, did not however contain any
allegation respecting the damages due the offended party. At the trial, the defense raised the issue of
non-payment of the docket fees corresponding to the claim of damages contained in Thelmo's sworn
complaint before the fiscal, as a bar to Thelmo's pursuing his civil action therefor. The trial Court
overruled the objection. It also denied the defendants' motion for reconsideration and motion for
suspension of proceedings.

General cited cases to support his argument that that payment of docket fees should be paid first before
the trial court acquired jurisdiction. One of the cited cases:

Manchester v. CA: Laid down the doctrine, that a specific amounts of claims of damages must be alleged
both in the body and the prayer of the complaint, and the filing fees corresponding thereto paid at the
time of the filing of the complaint; that if these requisites were not fulfilled, jurisdiction could not be
acquired by the trial court; and that amendment of the complaint could not "thereby vest jurisdiction
upon the Court.”

RULING:

In any event, the Court now makes that intent plainer, and in the interests of clarity and certainty,
categorically declares for the guidance of all concerned that when a civil action is deemed impliedly
instituted with the criminal in accordance with Section 1, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court—because the
offended party has NOT waived the civil action, or reserved the right to institute it separately, or
instituted the civil action prior to the criminal action—the rule is as follows:

1) when "the amount of damages, other than actual, is alleged in the complaint or information" filed in
court, then "the corresponding filing fees shall be paid by the offended party upon the filing thereof in
court for trial;"

2) in any other case, however—i.e., when the amount of damages is not so alleged in the complaint or
information filed in court, the corresponding filing fees need not be paid and shall simply "constitute a
first lien on the judgment, except in an award for actual damages.
WHEREFORE, there being no error in the challenged Orders of the respondent Court dated March 28,
1990 and May 17, 1990, these appearing on the contrary to be in accord with the law and the facts, the
Court Resolved to DISMISS the petition, with costs against the petitioner.