Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. vs Hon. Maximiano Asuncion

G.R. Nos. 79937-38 – 252 Phil. 280 – 170 SCRA 274 – Remedial Law – Civil Procedure – Filing of a Complaint – Docket Fees

In 1984, Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. was sued by Manuel Tiong before the Quezon City RTC. In the body of his complaint, Tiong claimed damages amounting to Php50 million. But said amount was not mentioned in his prayer. He paid a docket fee of therefor.

At that time, courts in Quezon City were being investigated by the Supreme Court for under-assessment of docket fees. In 1986, Judge Maximiano Asuncion ordered Tiong to amend his complaint so that the proper docket fee may be computed. Tiong complied and in his amended complaint, the body thereof discussed a damage amounting to Php44 million but the prayer asked for damages “not less than Php10 million.”

Based on the “not less than Php10 million” prayer, the clerk of court assessed a docket fee of P39, which Tiong paid.

Later, Tiong filed a supplemental complaint where he was asking an additional Php20 million in damages. He later paid an additional docket fee therefor of Php80,. The same was admitted by Judge Asuncion.

Sun Insurance invoked the ruling in Manchester Development vs CA where it was ruled that the court does not acquire jurisdiction over a case if the proper docket fee was not paid; that the defect cannot be cured by a supplemental complaint because if the proper docket fee was not paid in the first place, then there is no original complaint to supplement nor amend.

The issue reached the Court of Appeals where the CA ruled that Judge Asuncion is correct but Tiong must pay an additional docket fee of Php62,, which Tiong complied.

ISSUE: Whether or not the court acquired jurisdiction over the foregoing case considering that the correct and proper docket fee has not been paid in the first place.

HELD: Yes. The ruling in Manchester was relaxed in this case because Tiong showed his willingness to pay the additional docket fees unlike in the case of Manchester where Manchester Development intended to defraud the government by intentionally omitting the amount of damages it claimed in the prayer of their complaint.

The Supreme Court also laid down the following rules on docket fees:

1. 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.

2. The same rule applies to permissive counterclaims, third party claims and similar pleadings, which shall not be considered filed until and unless the filing fee prescribed therefor is paid. The court may also allow payment of said fee within a reasonable time but also in no case beyond its applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.

3. Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over a claim by the filing of the appropriate pleading and payment of the prescribed filing fee but, subsequently, the judgment awards a claim not specified in the pleading, or if specified the same has been left for determination by the court, the additional filing fee therefor shall constitute a lien on the judgment. It shall be the responsibility of the Clerk of Court or his duly authorized deputy to enforce said lien and assess and collect the additional fee.

Read full text.