RULE 141

LEGAL FEES
(Amended Pursuant to the Resolution of the Court in
A.M. No. 99-8-01-SC,)
MANNER OF PAYMENT
 The fees prescribed shall be paid in full.

But when?
Upon the :
1. filing of the pleading or ;
2. other application which initiates an action or proceeding
FEES IN LIEN
Query:

When shall the party concerned pay the

additional fees which shall constitute a lien
on the judgment in satisfaction of said lien?
Answer:
Where the court in its final judgment awards
a claim not alleged, or a relief different
from, or more than that claimed in the
pleading.
Who shall then assess and collect these
corresponding fees?
a. Revenue District Officer
b. Duly Authorized Agent
c. Clerk of Court
d. City or Municipal Treasurer
PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO COLLECT LEGAL
FEES
The persons authorized to collect legal fees shall be
accountable officers and shall be required to post
bond in such amount as prescribed by the law.

(a) Clerks of the Supreme Court, CA, CTA, and Sandiganbayan

(Sec.4)

(b) Clerks of RTCs (Sec. 7)

(c) Clerks of Court of First Level Courts (Sec. 8)

d) Sheriffs, Process Servers and other persons
serving processes (Sec. 10)

(e) Stenographers (Sec. 11)

(f) Notaries (Sec. 12)

(g) Other officers taking depositions (Sec. 13)

Are the assistants and deputies of the persons
mentioned covered by this Rule?
Yes, the officers and persons mentioned,
together with their assistants and deputies,
may demand, receive, and take the several fees
and allowed for any business by them
respectively done by virtue of their several
offices, and no more.
Where will the fees collected be remitted?
 ANSWER :

Supreme Court
Note:

The fees collected shall accrue to the general

fund.

However….
All increases in the legal fees prescribed in
amendments to this rule as well as new legal
fees prescribed shall pertain to the “Judiciary
Development Fund” as established by law.
It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading,
but the payment of the prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court with
jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action.

Where the filing of 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.
[Sun Life Insurance Office LTD., v. Asuncion (1989)]
Case:
G.R. No. 176783
DIMAANO vs BERSAMIN

Doctrine: The sheriff’s fee is not a penalty for some wrong that a party had done. It is an
assessment for the cost of the sheriff’s service in collecting the judgment amount for the
benefit of such party. Its collection is authorized under Rule 141 of the Rules of Court.  
Dimaano attempts to make a distinction between money ordered “collected” from the
judgment debtor and paid to the judgment creditor and money ordered “returned” by
one party to another from whom such money was unlawfully taken.  

Dimaano claims that she was already a victim when the government illegally seized
her money.  It would be unfair that she should still pay the government some fee to get
her money back. 
 
But, first, the imposition of the sheriff’s fee is not a penalty for some wrong that
Dimaano had done.  It is an assessment for the cost of the sheriff’s service in collecting
the judgment amount for her benefit.:
 

 
 Its collection is authorized under Rule 141 of
the Rules of Court, as amended thus:
– SEC. 3. Persons authorized to collect legal fees. – Except as
otherwise provided in this rule, the officers and persons
hereinafter mentioned, together with their assistants and
deputies, may demand, receive, and take the several fees
hereinafter mentioned x x x.
 
xxxx
 
SEC. 10. Sheriffs, PROCESS SERVERS and other
persons serving processes. – x x x

(l) For money collected by him x x x by order,

execution, attachment, or any other process, judicial or
extrajudicial which shall immediately be turned over to
the Clerk of Court, x x x.
 
Second, the order to pay a party the money owed him and the order to pay
another the money unlawfully taken from him are both awards of actual or
compensatory damages.  They compensate for the pecuniary loss that the
party suffered and proved in court. The recipients of the award, whether for
money owed or taken from him, benefit from the court’s intervention and
service in collecting the amount.  

As the Sandiganbayan correctly said, what determines the assessment of

the disputed court fee is the fact that the court, through valid processes,
ordered a certain sum of money to be placed in the hands of the sheriff for
turnover to the winning party.
 
In addition to raising before the Court the matter of the sheriff’s
fee, Dimaano also questions the Sandiganbayan’s failure to award
interest on the amount that was to be returned to her considering
that the government used and invested the money as if it were its
own.  But, as the Republic points out, Dimaano could no longer
seek the award of interest since she filed no appeal from the
decision of the Sandiganbayan that ordered merely the return of
such amount with no mention of interest