Civil Procedure Payment of Docket Fees Claim Damages should be Stated in the BODY and PRAYER of pleadings A complaint

nt for specific performance was filed by Manchester Development Corporation against City Land Development Corporation to compel the latter to execute a deed of sale in favor Manchester. Manchester also alleged that City Land forfeited the formers tender of payment for a certain transaction thereby causing damages to Manchester amounting to P78,750,000.00. This amount was alleged in the BODY of their Complaint but it was not reiterated in the PRAYER of same complaint. Manchester paid a docket fee of P410.00 only. Said docket fee is premised on the allegation of Manchester that their action is primarily for specific performance hence it is incapable of pecuniary estimation. The court ruled that there is an under assessment of docket fees hence it ordered Manchester to amend its complaint. Manchester complied but what it did was to lower the amount of claim for damages to P10M. Said amount was however again not stated in the PRAYER. ISSUE: Whether or not the amendment complaint should be admitted. HELD: No. The docket fee, its computation, should be based on the original complaint. A case is deemed filed only upon payment of the appropriate docket fee regardless of the actual date of filing in court. Here, since the proper docket fee was not paid for the original complaint, its as if there is no complaint to speak of. As a consequence, there is no original complaint duly filed which can be amended. So the any subsequent proceeding taken in consideration of the amended complaint is void. Manchesters defense that this case is primarily an action for specific performance is not merited. The Supreme Court ruled that based on the allegations and the prayer of the complaint, this case is an action for damages and for specific performance. Hence, it is capable of pecuniary estimation. Further, the amount for damages in the original complaint was already provided in the body of the complaint. Its omission in the PRAYER clearly constitutes an attempt to evade the payment of the proper filing fees. To stop the happenstance of similar irregularities in the future, the Supreme Court ruled that from this case on, all complaints, petitions, answers and other similar pleadings should specify the amount of damages being prayed for not only in the body of the pleading but also in the prayer, and said damages shall be considered in the assessment of the filing fees in any case. Any pleading that fails to comply with this requirement shall not bib accepted nor admitted, or shall otherwise be expunged from the record.

SERAFIN TIJAM, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. MAGDALENO SIBONGHANOY alias GAVINO SIBONGHANOY and LUCIABAGUIO, defendants, MANILA SURETY AND FIDELITY CO., INC. (CEBU BRANCH) bondingcompany and defendant-appellant. G.R. No. L-21450 April 15, 1968FACTS: Spouses Serafin and Felicitas commenced a civil case against spouses Sibonghanoyto recover from them a sum of P1, 908.00 with legal interest. A writ of attachment wasissued by the court against the defendants properties but the same was soon dissolved.After trial, the court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and after the same hadbecome final and executor, the court issued a writ of execution against the defendants. Thewrit being unsatisfied, the plaintiffs moved for the issuance of the writ of execution against

the Suretys bond. Subsequently, the Surety moved to quash the writ on the ground that the same was issued without summary hearing. This was denied by the RTC. The Suretyappealed in the CA, which was denied. This time, the surety just asked for an extension inorder for them to file the motion for reconsideration. But instead of filing for a motion forreconsideration, it filed a motion to dismiss saying that by virtue of R.A. 296 which is theJudiciary Reorganization Act of 1948, section 88 of which placed within the exclusive original jurisdiction of inferior courts all civil action where the value of the subject matter does notexceed P2,000.00. The Court of First Instance therefore has no jurisdiction over the case. Thequestion of jurisdiction was filed by the Surety only 15 years from the time the action wascommenced in the Court of First Instance. ISSUE: WON THE CASE SHOULD BE DISMISSED DUE TO THE LACK OF JURISDICTION HELD: No. After voluntarily submitting a cause and encountering an adverse decision on themerits, it is too late for the loser to question the jurisdiction or power of the court. The ruleis that jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred upon the courts exclusive by law asby law and as the lack of it affect the very authority of the court to take cognizance of thecase, the objection may be raised at any stage of the proceedings. However, considering thefacts and circumstances of the present cases, a party may be barred by laches frominvolving this plea for the first time on appeal for the purpose of annulling everything done in the case. A party cannot invoke a courts jurisdiction and later on deny it to escape a penalty.