Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 175914 February 10, 2009
RUBY SE!TER BU"!#ERS $N# RE$!TY #E%E!OPMENT CORPOR$T"ON, Petitioner,
vs.
ON. P$B!O C. FORM$R$N """, Respondents.
D ! I S I O N
C"CO&N$'$R"O, J.:
N$TURE( Pe)*)*o+ ,or Re-*e. o+ Cer)*orar* u+/er Ru0e 45.
F$CTS
Rub S1e0)er Cor2. obtained a 0oa+ of P95,700,320.00 fro" respondents Ta+ and Ob*e/o, 4e5ure/
by rea0 e4)a)e 6or)7a7e4 o-er ,*-e 2ar5e04 o, 0a+/, a00 0o5a)e/ *+ Tr*a+7u0o, Na7a C*)y,
#hen petitioner $as unable to pa% the loan $hen it beca"e due and de"andable, respondents Tan
and Obiedo a&reed to an e'tension of the sa"e.
In a Mo(, respondents Tan and Obiedo &ranted petitioner additional ti"e to pa% the indebtedness in
e'chan&e for Rub% Shelter)s si"ultaneous e'ecution of #ee/4 o, $b4o0u)e Sa0e 8by .ay o,
/a5*o+ e+ 2a7o8 in favor of respondents Tan and Obiedo over the sa"e parcels of land sub*ect of
the "ort&a&es.
Petitioner could choose to pa% off its indebtedness $ith individual or all five parcels of land+ or it
could redee" said properties b% pa%in& respondents Tan and Obiedo the follo$in& prices for the
sa"e, inclusive of interest and penalties,
"+ )1e e-e+) )1a) 2e)*)*o+er *4 ab0e )o re/ee6 a+y o, )1e a,ore&6e+)*o+e/ 2ar5e04 o, 0a+/, )1e
#ee/ o, $b4o0u)e Sa0e 5o-er*+7 )1e 4a*/ 2ro2er)y 41a00 be +u00*,*e/ a+/ 1a-e +o ,or5e a+/
e,,e5)+ and respondents Tan and Obiedo shall then return the o$ner)s duplicate of the correspondin&
T!T to petitioner and also e'ecute a Deed of Dischar&e of Mort&a&e. Ho$ever, if petitioner is unable
to redee" the parcels of land $ithin the period a&reed upon, respondents Tan and Obiedo could
alread% present the Deeds of (bsolute Sale coverin& the sa"e to the Office of the Re&ister of Deeds
for Na&a !it% so respondents Tan and Obiedo could ac-uire T!Ts to the said properties in their
na"es.
T1e Me6ora+/u6 o, $7ree6e+) ,ur)1er 2ro-*/e/ )1a) 41ou0/ 2e)*)*o+er 5o+)e4), 9u/*5*a00y or
o)1er.*4e, a+y a5), )ra+4a5)*o+, or e-e+) re0a)e/ )o or +e5e44ar*0y 5o++e5)e/ .*)1 )1e 4a*/
Me6ora+/u6 a+/ )1e #ee/4 o, $b4o0u)e Sa0e *+-o0-*+7 )1e ,*-e 2ar5e04 o, 0a+/, *) .ou0/ 2ay
re42o+/e+)4 Ta+ a+/ Ob*e/o P10,000,000.00 a4 0*:u*/a)e/ /a6a7e4 *+50u4*-e o, 5o4)4 a+/
a))or+ey;4 ,ee4. Pe)*)*o+er .ou0/ 0*<e.*4e 2ay re42o+/e+)4 Ta+ a+/ Ob*e/o )1e 5o+/o+e/
*+)ere4)4, 4ur51ar7e4 a+/ 2e+a0)*e4.
./

Pay6e+) .a4 +o) 6a/e by Ruby S1e0)er .*)1*+ )1e 4)*2u0a)e/ e=)e+4*o+ 2er*o/.
Re42o+/e+)4 Ta+ a+/ Ob*e/o 2re4e+)e/ )1e #ee/4 o, $b4o0u)e Sa0e /a)e/ > ?a+uary 2003
be,ore )1e Re7*4)er o, #ee/4 o, Na7a C*)y a+/ .ere ab0e )o 4e5ure TCT4 o-er )1e ,*-e 2ar5e04
o, 0a+/ *+ )1e*r +a6e4.
Ruby S1e0)er ,*0e/ be,ore )1e RTC a Co620a*+)
12
a7a*+4) re42o+/e+)4 Ta+, Ob*e/o, a+/ $))y.
Reye4, ,or /e50ara)*o+ o, +u00*)y o, /ee/4 o, 4a0e4 a+/ /a6a7e4, .*)1 2rayer ,or )1e *44ua+5e
o, a .r*) o, 2re0*6*+ary *+9u+5)*o+ a+/@or )e62orary re4)ra*+*+7 or/er ATRO0.
!( affir"ed the Order RT! 1ranch 22 of Na&a !it% orderin& petitioner Rub% Shelter 1uilders and
Realt% Develop"ent !orporation )o 2ay a//*)*o+a0 /o5<e)@,*0*+7 ,ee4, co"puted based on Section
34a0 of Rule .5. of the Rules of !ourt, as a"ended.
B%ERY "MPORT$NT( U2o+ ,*0*+7 *)4 Co620a*+) .*)1 )1e RTC o+ 13 Mar51 2003, 2e)*)*o+er 2a*/
)1e 4u6 o, P 1>,344.25 ,or /o5<e) a+/ o)1er 0e7a0 ,ee4, a4 a44e44e/ by )1e O,,*5e o, )1e C0er<
o, Cour).
The !ler6 of !ourt initiall% considered the !ivil !ase a4 a+ a5)*o+ *+5a2ab0e o, 2e5u+*ary
e4)*6a)*o+ and co"puted the doc6et and other le&al fees due thereon accordin& to Section 34b04.0,
Rule .5. of the Rules of !ourt.C.
(s re-uired b% the RT!, the parties sub"itted their Position Papers on the "atter.
Respondent Tan "ade an O"nibus "otion as6in& the RT! to order the plaintiff Rub% Shelter to pa%
the correct a"ount of filin& and doc6et fees as it is a real action.
The RT! issued an Order
.3
&rantin& respondent Tan)s O"nibus Motion. "+ 1o0/*+7 )1a) bo)1
2e)*)*o+er a+/ re42o+/e+) Ta+ 6u4) 2ay /o5<e) ,ee4 *+ a55or/a+5e .*)1 Se5)*o+ 7AaD, Ru0e
141 o, )1e Ru0e4 o, Cour), a4 a6e+/e/.
#HR7OR, pre"ises considered, the 8herein petitioner9 is hereb% ordered to pa% additional filin&
fee and the 8herein respondent9, Ro"eo Tan is also ordered to pa% doc6et and filin& fees on his
counterclai", bo)1 5o62u)e/ ba4e/ o+ Se5)*o+ 7AaD o, )1e Su2re6e Cour) $6e+/e/
$/6*+*4)ra)*-e C*r5u0ar No. >5&2004 $ithin fifteen 4.:0 da%s fro" receipt of this Order to the !ler6
of !ourt, Re&ional Trial !ourt, Na&a !it% and for the latter to co"pute and to collect the said fees
accordin&l%.
.;
Pe)*)*o+er Ruby S1e0)er ,*0e/ a Mo)*o+ ,or Par)*a0 Re5o+4*/era)*o+ ar&uin& that the case $as
principall% for the annul"ent of the Deeds of (bsolute Sale and, as such, incapable of pecuniar%
esti"ation
RTC /e+*e/ MR.
1e+5e, .*)1 6ore rea4o+ )1a) )1e B2e)*)*o+erC .1o +o 0o+7er 1a4 )*)0e )o )1e rea0 2ro2er)*e4
4ub9e5) o, )1e *+4)a+) 5a4e 6u4) be re:u*re/ )o 2ay )1e re:u*re/ ,ee4 *+ a55or/a+5e .*)1
Se5)*o+ 7AaD o, )1e $6e+/e/ $/6*+*4)ra)*-e C*r5u0ar No. >5&2004 a,ore&6e+)*o+e/.
Pe)*)*o+e Ruby S1e0)er ,*0e/ a Pe)*)*o+ ,or Cer)*orar* .*)1 )1e Cour) o, $22ea04 alle&in& &rave
abuseo f discretion on the part of the RT! .
Cour) o, $22ea04 1e0/ )1a) RTC /*/ +o) a5) .*)1 7ra-e abu4e o, /*45re)*o+. B"MPORT$NT(
C0ear0y, )1e 2e)*)*o+er;4 5o620a*+) *+-o0-e4 +o) o+0y )1e a++u06e+) o, )1e /ee/4 o, 4a0e, bu)
a04o )1e re5o-ery o, )1e rea0 2ro2er)*e4 */e+)*,*e/ *+ )1e 4a*/ /o5u6e+)4. In other $ords, the
ob*ectives of the petitioner in filin& the co"plaint $ere to cancel the deeds of sale.
Ruby S1e0)er /*/ +o) ,*0e a+ MR .*)1 )1e C$ a+/ .e+) /*re5)0y )o )1e SC .*)1 R45 2e)*)*o+.
"SSUE(
#*/ )1e C$ err *+ u21o0/*+7 )1e RTC /e5*4*o+ re:u*r*+7 Ruby S1e0)er )o 2ay a//*)*o+a0
,*0*+7@/o5<e) ,ee4E
SC RU!"NG( No, )1e C$ *4 5orre5) *+ u21o0/*+7 )1e RTC. "+ 4u6, )1e Cour) ,*+/4 )1a) )1e )rue
+a)ure o, )1e a5)*o+ *+4)*)u)e/ by 2e)*)*o+er a7a*+4) re42o+/e+)4 *4 )1e re5o-ery o, )*)0e )o a+/
2o44e44*o+ o, rea0 2ro2er)y. ") *4 a rea0 a5)*o+ +e5e44ar*0y *+-o0-*+7 rea0 2ro2er)y, )1e /o5<e)
,ee4 ,or .1*51 6u4) be 5o62u)e/ *+ a55or/a+5e .*)1 Se5)*o+ 7A1D, Ru0e 141 o, )1e Ru0e4 o,
Cour), a4 a6e+/e/. T1e Cour) o, $22ea04, )1ere,ore, /*/ +o) 5o66*) a+y error *+ a,,*r6*+7 )1e
RTC Or/er4 re:u*r*+7 2e)*)*o+er )o 2ay a//*)*o+a0 /o5<e) ,ee4 ,or *)4 Co620a*+) *+ C*-*0 Ca4e
No. 2003&00>0.
Relevant to the present controvers% are the follo$in& provisions under Rule .5. of the Rules of
!ourt, as a"ended b% (.M. No. /5<2</5<S!
=/
and Supre"e !ourt ("ended (d"inistrative !ircular
No. =:<2//5
=.
,
If the action involves both a "one% clai" and relief pertainin& to propert%, then TH fees $ill be
char&ed on both the a"ounts clai"ed and value of propert% based on the for"ula prescribed in this
para&raph a.
The doc6et fees under Section 34a0, Rule .5., in cases involvin& real propert% depend on the fair
"ar6et value of the sa"e, the hi&her the value of the real propert%, the hi&her the doc6et fees due.
In contrast, Section 34b04.0, Rule .5. i"poses a fi'ed or flat rate of doc6et fees on actions incapable
of pecuniar% esti"ation.
Co+4*4)e+) .*)1 )1e 0*bera0 )e+or o, Su+ "+4ura+5e, )1e RTC, *+4)ea/ o, /*46*44*+7 ou)r*71)
2e)*)*o+er;4 Co620a*+) *+ C*-*0 Ca4e No. 2003&00>0, 7ra+)e/ 2e)*)*o+er )*6e )o 2ay )1e
a//*)*o+a0 /o5<e) ,ee4. #e42*)e )1e 4ee6*+7 6u+*,*5e+5e o, )1e RTC, 2e)*)*o+er re,u4e/ )o 2ay
)1e a//*)*o+a0 /o5<e) ,ee4 a44e44e/ a7a*+4) *), believin& that it had alread% paid the correct
a"ount before, pursuant to Section 34b04.0, Rule .5. of the Rules of !ourt, as a"ended.
B%ERY "MPORT$NT( "+ or/er )o re4o0-e )1e *44ue o, .1e)1er 2e)*)*o+er 2a*/ )1e 5orre5)
a6ou+) o, /o5<e) ,ee4, *) *4 +e5e44ary )o /e)er6*+e )1e )rue +a)ure o, *)4 Co620a*+).
The dictu" adhered to in this *urisdiction is that the +a)ure o, a+ a5)*o+ *4 /e)er6*+e/ by )1e
a00e7a)*o+4 *+ )1e bo/y o, )1e 20ea/*+7 or Co620a*+) *)4e0,, ra)1er )1a+ by *)4 )*)0e or 1ea/*+7.
=2

B%ERY "MPORT$NT( Ho$ever, the !ourt finds it +e5e44ary, in ascertainin& the true nature of !ivil
!ase No. 2//><//=/, )o )a<e *+)o a55ou+) 4*7+*,*5a+) ,a5)4 a+/ 5*r5u64)a+5e4 beyo+/ )1e
Co620a*+) o, 2e)*)*o+er, ,a5)4 a+/ 5*r5u64)a+5e4 .1*51 2e)*)*o+er ,a*0e/ )o 4)a)e *+ *)4
Co620a*+) bu) .ere /*450o4e/ *+ )1e 2re0*6*+ary 2ro5ee/*+74 be,ore )1e 5our) a :uo.C
B%ERY "MPORT$NT( F1a) 2e)*)*o+er ,a*0e/ )o 6e+)*o+ *+ *)4 Co620a*+) .a4 )1a) re42o+/e+)4
Ta+ a+/ Ob*e/o a0rea/y 1a/ )1e Me6ora+/u6 o, $7ree6e+), .1*51 50ear0y 2ro-*/e/ ,or )1e
e=e5u)*o+ o, )1e #ee/4 o, $b4o0u)e Sa0e, re7*4)ere/ o+ )1e TCT4 o-er )1e ,*-e 2ar5e04 o, 0a+/,
)1e+ 4)*00 *+ )1e +a6e o, 2e)*)*o+er.C Respondents Tan and Obiedo not onl% have T!Ts in their
na"e but also ac-uired possession of the said properties, enablin& the", b% petitioner)s o$n
ad"ission, to de"olish the i"prove"ents thereon.
") *4, )1u4, 4u42e5) )1a) 2e)*)*o+er <e2) 6u6 abou) )1e a,ore&6e+)*o+e/ ,a5)4 a+/
5*r5u64)a+5e4 .1e+ )1ey 1a/ a0rea/y )a<e+ 20a5e be,ore *) ,*0e/ *)4 Co620a*+) be,ore )1e
RTC. B%ERY "MPORT$NT( Pe)*)*o+er /e0*bera)e0y a-o*/e/ ra*4*+7 *44ue4 o+ )1e )*)0e a+/
2o44e44*o+ o, )1e rea0 2ro2er)*e4 )1a) 6ay 0ea/ )1e Cour) )o 50a44*,y *)4 5a4e a4 a rea0 a5)*o+.
No 6a))er 1o. ,a4)*/*ou40y 2e)*)*o+er a))e62)4 )o 5o+5ea0 )1e6, )1e a00e7a)*o+4 a+/ re0*e,4 *)
4ou71) *+ *)4 Co620a*+) *+ C*-*0 Ca4e No. 2003&00>0 a22ear4 )o be u0)*6a)e0y a rea0 a5)*o+,
*+-o0-*+7 a4 )1ey /o )1e re5o-ery by 2e)*)*o+er o, *)4 )*)0e )o a+/ 2o44e44*o+ o, )1e ,*-e
2ar5e04 o, 0a+/ ,ro6 re42o+/e+)4 Ta+ a+/ Ob*e/o.C
B%ERY "MPORT$NT( F1*0e *) *4 )rue )1a) 2e)*)*o+er /oe4 +o) /*re5)0y 4ee< )1e re5o-ery o, )*)0e
or 2o44e44*o+ o, )1e 2ro2er)y *+ :ue4)*o+, 1*4 a5)*o+ ,or a++u06e+) o, 4a0e a+/ 1*4 50a*6 ,or
/a6a7e4 are 50o4e0y *+)er).*+e/ .*)1 )1e *44ue o, o.+er41*2 o, )1e bu*0/*+7 .1*51, u+/er )1e
0a., *4 5o+4*/ere/ *66o-ab0e 2ro2er)y, )1e re5o-ery o, .1*51 *4 2e)*)*o+erG4 2r*6ary
ob9e5)*-e.
B%ERY "MPORT$NT ( T1e 2re-a0e+) /o5)r*+e *4 )1a) a+ a5)*o+ ,or )1e a++u06e+) or re45*44*o+
o, a 4a0e o, rea0 2ro2er)y /oe4 +o) o2era)e )o e,,a5e )1e ,u+/a6e+)a0 a+/ 2r*6e ob9e5)*-e a+/
+a)ure o, )1e 5a4e, .1*51 *4 )o re5o-er 4a*/ rea0 2ro2er)y. ") *4 a rea0 a5)*o+.C
OTER #OCTR"NES(
", )1ere .a4 ba/ ,a*)1 or e-*/e+) *+)e+)*o+ )o e-a/e 2ay6e+) o, )1e 5orre5) a6ou+) o, ,*0*+7
,ee4 *+ 1a-*+7 u))er0y ,a*0e/ )o 5o620y .*)1 )1e re:u*re6e+) o, )1e Ru0e )1a) 1e 41a00 a00e7e *+
1*4 5o620a*+) )1e a44e44e/ -a0ue o, 1*4 rea0 2ro2er)*e4 *+ 5o+)ro-er4y, )1e 5o620a*+) 41ou0/
+o) be a55e2)e/ by )1e )r*a0 5our) ,or *) /*/ +o) a5:u*re 9ur*4/*5)*o+ o-er )1e 5a4e /ue )o
+o+2ay6e+) o, )1e re:u*re/ /o5<e) ,ee4.
If the nonpa%"ent $as in &ood faith, the liberal tenor of Sun Insurance $ill appl%.
Our pronounce"ent in 7ortune Motors 4Phils.0, Inc. vs. !ourt of (ppeals is instructive. There, $e
said,
$ 2rayer ,or a++u06e+) or re45*44*o+ o, 5o+)ra5) /oe4 +o) o2era)e )o e,,a5e )1e )rue
ob9e5)*-e4 a+/ +a)ure o, )1e a5)*o+ .1*51 *4 )o re5o-er rea0 2ro2er)y. A"+)o+, e) a0., -. Hu*+)a+,
I1 P1*0. 97, 194ID
$+ a5)*o+ ,or )1e a++u06e+) or re45*44*o+ o, a 4a0e o, rea0 2ro2er)y *4 a rea0 a5)*o+. ")4 2r*6e
ob9e5)*-e *4 )o re5o-er 4a*/ rea0 2ro2er)y. AGa-*ere4 -. Sa+51eJ, 94 P1*0. 730, 1954D
$+ a5)*o+ )o a++u0 a rea0 e4)a)e 6or)7a7e ,ore50o4ure 4a0e *4 +o /*,,ere+) ,ro6 a+ a5)*o+ )o
a++u0 a 2r*-a)e 4a0e o, rea0 2ro2er)y. AMuKoJ -. !0a6a4, I7 P1*0. 7>7, 1950D.
B"MPORTR$NT( "+ Ma+51e4)er #e-e0o26e+) Cor2ora)*o+ -. Cour) o, $22ea04,
2I
)1e Cour)
e=20*5*)0y 2ro+ou+5e/ )1a) 8B)C1e 5our) a5:u*re4 9ur*4/*5)*o+ o-er a+y 5a4e o+0y u2o+ )1e
2ay6e+) o, )1e 2re45r*be/ /o5<e) ,ee.8 e+5e, )1e 2ay6e+) o, /o5<e) ,ee4 *4 +o) o+0y
6a+/a)ory, bu) a04o 9ur*4/*5)*o+a0.
In Sun Insurance Office, ?td. 4SIO?0 v. (suncion,
2;
the !ourt laid do$n &uidelines for the
i"ple"entation of its previous pronounce"ent in Manchester under particular circu"stances, to $it,
.. It is not si"pl% the filin& of the co"plaint or appropriate initiator% pleadin&, but the pa%"ent
of the prescribed doc6et fee, that vests a trial court $ith *urisdiction over the sub*ect "atter or
nature of the action. #here the filin& of the initiator% pleadin& is not acco"panied b%
pa%"ent of the doc6et fee, the court "a% allo$ pa%"ent of the fee $ithin a reasonable ti"e
bu) *+ +o 5a4e beyo+/ )1e a220*5ab0e 2re45r*2)*-e or re70e6e+)ary 2er*o/.
2. T1e 4a6e ru0e a220*e4 )o 2er6*44*-e 5ou+)er50a*64, )1*r/&2ar)y 50a*64 a+/ 4*6*0ar
20ea/*+74, .1*51 41a00 +o) be 5o+4*/ere/ ,*0e/ u+)*0 a+/ u+0e44 )1e ,*0*+7 ,ee
2re45r*be/ )1ere,or *4 2a*/. The court "a% also allo$ pa%"ent of said fee $ithin a
reasonable ti"e but also in no case be%ond its applicable prescriptive or re&le"entar%
period.
=. #here the trial court ac-uires *urisdiction over a clai" b% the filin& of the appropriate
pleadin& and pa%"ent of the prescribed filin& fee but, subse-uentl%, the *ud&"ent a$ards a
clai" not specified in the pleadin&, or if specified the sa"e has been left for deter"ination b%
the court, the additional filin& fee therefor shall constitute a lien on the *ud&"ent. It shall be
the responsibilit% of the !ler6 of !ourt or his dul% authori@ed deput% to enforce said lien and
assess and collect the additional fee.C
( real action is one in $hich the plaintiff see6s the recover% of real propert%+ or, as indicated in $hat
is no$ Section ., Rule 5 of the Rules of !ourt, a real action is an action affectin& title to or recover%
of possession of real propert%.
==
Se5)*o+ 7, Ru0e 141 o, )1e Ru0e4 o, Cour), 2r*or )o *)4 a6e+/6e+) by $.M. No. 04&2&04&SC, 1a/
a 42e5*,*5 2ara7ra21 7o-er+*+7 )1e a44e446e+) o, )1e /o5<e) ,ee4 ,or rea0 a5)*o+, )o .*)(
"+ a rea0 a5)*o+, )1e a44e44e/ -a0ue o, )1e 2ro2er)y, or *, )1ere *4 +o+e, )1e e4)*6a)e/ -a0ue
)1ereo, 41a00 be a00e7e/ by )1e 50a*6a+) a+/ 41a00 be )1e ba4*4 *+ 5o62u)*+7 )1e ,ee4.
It $as in accordance $ith the afore<-uoted provision that the !ourt, in Aochan v. Aochan,
=5
held that
althou&h the caption of the co"plaint filed b% therein respondents Mercedes Aochan, et al. $ith the
RT! $as deno"inated as one for Bspecific perfor"ance and da"a&es,B the relief sou&ht $as the
conve%ance or transfer of real propert%, or ulti"atel%, the e'ecution of deeds of conve%ance in their
favor of the real properties enu"erated in the provisional "e"orandu" of a&ree"ent. Cnder these
circu"stances, the case before the RT! $as actuall% a real action, affectin& as it did title to or
possession of real propert%. B"MPORT$NT( Co+4e:ue+)0y, )1e ba4*4 ,or /e)er6*+*+7 )1e 5orre5)
/o5<e) ,ee4 41a00 be )1e a44e44e/ -a0ue o, )1e 2ro2er)y, or )1e e4)*6a)e/ -a0ue )1ereo, a4
a00e7e/ *+ )1e 5o620a*+). Bu) 4*+5e Mer5e/e4 Go51a+ ,a*0e/ )o a00e7e *+ )1e*r 5o620a*+) )1e
-a0ue o, )1e rea0 2ro2er)*e4, )1e Cour) ,ou+/ )1a) )1e RTC /*/ +o) a5:u*re 9ur*4/*5)*o+ o-er )1e
4a6e ,or +o+&2ay6e+) o, )1e 5orre5) /o5<e) ,ee4.C
( careful e'a"ination of respondent)s co"plaint is that it is a real action. In Paderan&a vs. 1uissan,
$e held that Bin a real action, the plaintiff see6s the recover% of real propert%, or, as stated in Section
24a0, Rule 5 of the Revised Rules of !ourt, a real action is one Daffectin& title to real propert% or for
the recover% of possession of, or for partition or conde"nation of, or foreclosure of a "ort&a&e on a
real propert%.)B
Ob-*ou40y, re42o+/e+);4 5o620a*+) *4 a rea0 a5)*o+ *+-o0-*+7 +o) o+0y )1e re5o-ery o, rea0
2ro2er)*e4, bu) 0*<e.*4e )1e 5a+5e00a)*o+ o, )1e )*)0e4 )1ere)o.
!onsiderin& that respondent)s co"plaint is a real action, the Rule re-uires that Bthe assessed value
of the propert%, or if there is none, the esti"ated value thereof shall be alle&ed b% the clai"ant and
shall be the basis in co"putin& the fees.B
1rushin& aside the si&nificance of Serrano, petitioner ar&ues that said decision, rendered b% the
Third Division of the !ourt, and not b% the !ourt en banc, cannot "odif% or reverse the doctrine laid
do$n in Spouses De ?eon v. !ourt of (ppeals.
=;
Petitioner relies heavil% on the declaration of this
!ourt in Spouses De ?eon that an action for annul"ent or rescission of a contract of sale of real
propert% is incapable of pecuniar% esti"ation.
The !ourt, ho$ever, does not perceive a contradiction bet$een Serrano and the Spouses De ?eon.
The !ourt calls attention to the follo$in& state"ent in Spouses De ?eon, B( revie$ of the
*urisprudence of this !ourt indicates that in deter"inin& $hether an action is one the sub*ect "atter
of $hich is not capable of pecuniar% esti"ation, this !ourt has adopted the criterion of first
ascertainin& the nature of the principal action or re"ed% sou&ht.B B%ERY "MPORT$NT( Ne5e44ar*0y,
)1e /e)er6*+a)*o+ 6u4) be /o+e o+ a 5a4e&)o&5a4e ba4*4, /e2e+/*+7 o+ )1e ,a5)4 a+/
5*r5u64)a+5e4 o, ea51. F1a) 2e)*)*o+er 5o+-e+*e+)0y *7+ore4 *4 )1a) *+ S2ou4e4 #e !eo+, )1e
a5)*o+ )1ere*+ )1a) 2r*-a)e re42o+/e+)4 *+4)*)u)e/ be,ore )1e RTC .a4 84o0e0y ,or a++u06e+)
or re45*44*o+8 o, )1e 5o+)ra5) o, 4a0e o-er a rea0 2ro2er)y.
40
T1ere a22eare/ )o be +o )ra+4,er
o, )*)0e or 2o44e44*o+ )o )1e a/-er4e 2ar)y.C Their co"plaint si"pl% pra%ed for,
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
S!OND DIVISION
G.R. No. 173>>9 ?a+uary 10, 2011
#O&$!! MET$!S "N#USTR"ES, "NC., SPS. #OM"NGO !"M a+/ !E!Y LUNG !"M, Petitioners,
vs.
SECUR"TY B$NL CORP., Respondents.
D ! I S I O N
$B$#, J.:
This case is about the propriet% of a$ardin& da"a&es based on clai"s e"bodied in the plaintiff)s
supple"ental co"plaint filed $ithout prior pa%"ent of the correspondin& filin& fees.
F$CTS(
#ra7o+ !a/y "+/u4)r*e4, "+5., o.+e/ by 2e)*)*o+er 42ou4e4 #o6*+7o !*6 a+/ !e0y Lu+7 !*6
A)1e !*64D )oo< ou) 0oa+4 ,ro6 re42o+/e+) Se5ur*)y Ba+< Cor2ora)*o+ that
totaled P92,454,773.45.
U+ab0e )o 2ay )1e 0oa+4 o+ )*6e, )1e !*64 a44*7+e/ 4o6e o, )1e*r rea0 2ro2er)*e4 to the 1an6
to secure the sa"e, *+50u/*+7 a bu*0/*+7 a+/ )1e 0o) o+ .1*51 *) 4)a+/4 in Pasi& !it%.
.
The 1an6 offered to lease the propert% to the ?i"s throu&h petitioner Do<(ll Metals Industries, Inc.
4DMI0 pri"aril% for business althou&h the ?i"s $ere to use part of the propert% as their residence.
#M" a+/ )1e Ba+< e=e5u)e/ a ).o&year 0ea4e 5o+)ra5) fro" October ., .;;E to Septe"ber =/,
2/// but the 1an6 retained the ri&ht to pre<ter"inate the lease. T1e 5o+)ra5) a04o 2ro-*/e/ )1a),
41ou0/ )1e Ba+< /e5*/e )o 4e00 )1e 2ro2er)y, #M" 41a00 1a-e )1e r*71) o, ,*r4) re,u4al.
1efore the lease $as up, the Ba+< 7a-e +o)*5e )o #M" )1a) *) .a4 2re&)er6*+a)*+7 )1e 0ea4e.
Fa+)*+7 )o e=er5*4e *)4 r*71) o, ,*r4) re,u4a0, #M" )r*e/ )o +e7o)*a)e .*)1 )1e Ba+< )1e )er64 o,
*)4 2ur51a4e. Ne&otiations failed.
#hile the ne&otiations $ere on &oin&, the ?i"s clai"ed that the% continued to use the propert% in
their business but the 1an6 posted at the place private securit% &uards $ho on so"e occasions
padloc6ed the entrances to the place and barred the ?i"s as $ell as DMI)s e"plo%ees fro" enterin&
the propert%.
One of the &uards even pointed his &un at one e"plo%ee and shots $ere fired. 1ecause of this, DMI
$as unable to close several pro*ects and contracts $ith prospective clients.
7urther, the ?i"s alle&ed that the% $ere unable to retrieve assorted furniture, e-uip"ent, and
personal ite"s left at the propert%.
T1e !*64 e-e+)ua00y ,*0e/ a 5o620a*+) .*)1 )1e Re7*o+a0 Tr*a0 Cour) ARTCD o, Pa4*7 C*)y ,or
/a6a7e4 .*)1 2rayer ,or )1e *44ua+5e o, a )e62orary re4)ra*+*+7 or/er ATROD or 2re0*6*+ary
*+9u+5)*o+ a7a*+4) )1e Ba+< a+/ *)4 5o&/e,e+/a+)4 Payo+7ayo+7, S*4o+, P"S$, a+/ G*0 S*0o4.
2

(ns$erin& the co"plaint, the 1an6 pointed out that the lease contract allo$ed it to sell the propert%
at an% ti"e provided onl% that it &ave DMI the ri&ht of first refusal but the ne&otiations failed.
The 1an6 denied, on the other hand, that its &uards harassed DMI and the ?i"s.
The ?i"s clai"ed, ho$ever, that on enterin& the buildin&, the% $ere unable to find the "ovable
properties the% left there. In a supple"ental co"plaint, DMI and the ?i"s alle&ed that the 1an6
surreptitiousl% too6 such properties, resultin& in additional actual da"a&es to the" of over P23
"illion.
The RT! set the pre<trial in the case for Dece"ber 5, 2//.. O+ )1a) /a)e, 1o.e-er, 5ou+4e0 ,or
)1e Ba+< 6o-e/ )o re4e) )1e 2ro5ee/*+7. T1e 5our) /e+*e/ )1e 6o)*o+ a+/ a00o.e/ #M" a+/
)1e !*64 )o 2re4e+) )1e*r e-*/e+5e ex parte.
RTC re+/ere/ a /e5*4*o+ *+ ,a-or o, #M" a+/ )1e !*64. It ordered the 1an6 to pa% the
plaintiffs P23,;35,:>5.// as actual da"a&es, P://,///.// as "oral da"a&es, P://,/// as
e'e"plar% da"a&es, and P.//,///.// as attorne%)s fees. 1ut the court absolved defendants
Pa%on&a%on&, Sison, Silos and PIS( of an% liabilit%.
B%ERY "MPORT$NT( T1e Ba+< ,*0e a+/ MR, :ue4)*o+*+7 a6o+7 o)1er )1*+74 )1e RTC;4
au)1or*)y )o 7ra+) /a6a7e4 5o+4*/er*+7 20a*+)*,,4; ,a*0ure )o 2ay )1e ,*0*+7 ,ee4 o+ )1e*r
4u220e6e+)a0 5o620a*+)C
T1e RTC /e+*e/ )1e MR.
On appeal to the C$, the latter found for the 1an6, re-er4e/ )1e RTC /e5*4*o+, and /*46*44e/ )1e
5o620a*+) a4 .e00 a4 )1e 5ou+)er50a*64.
:
DMI and the ?i"s filed an MR. !( denied MR.
"SSUE(
#*/ )1e RTC a5:u*re 9ur*4/*5)*o+ )o 1ear a+/ a/9u/*5a)e 20a*+)*,,;4 or*7*+a0 5o620a*+)E
SC RU!"NG( YES, )1e RTC a5:u*re/ 9ur*4/*5)*o+ o-er )1e 4u220e6e+)a0 5o620a*+).
B%ERY "MPORT$NT( F1a) )1e 20a*+)*,,4 ,a*0e/ )o 2ay .a4 6ere0y )1e ,*0*+7 ,ee4 ,or )1e*r
Su220e6e+)a0 Co620a*+). T1e RTC a5:u*re/ 9ur*4/*5)*o+ o-er 20a*+)*,,4; a5)*o+ ,ro6 )1e
6o6e+) )1ey ,*0e/ )1e*r or*7*+a0 5o620a*+) a55o62a+*e/ by )1e 2ay6e+) o, )1e ,*0*+7 ,ee4 /ue
o+ )1e 4a6e.
T1e 20a*+)*,,4; +o+&2ay6e+) o, )1e a//*)*o+a0 ,*0*+7 ,ee4 /ue o+ )1e*r a//*)*o+a0 50a*64 #"#
NOT /*-e4) )1e RTC o, )1e 9ur*4/*5)*o+ *) a0rea/y 1a/ o-er )1e 5a4e.
>

#*/ )1e RTC a5:u*re 9ur*4/*5)*o+ )o 1ear a+/ a/9u/*5a)e 20a*+)*,,;4 4u220e6e+)a0
5o620a*+) a7a*+4) )1e Ba+< 5o+4*/er*+7 )1e*r ,a*0ure )o 2ay )1e ,*0*+7 ,ee4 o+ )1e
a6ou+)4 o, /a6a7e4 )1ey 50a*6 *+ *)E
SC RU!"NG( NO, 20a*+)*,,4 1a-e +o e=5u4e ,or )1e*r 5o+)*+uou4 ,a*0ure )o 2ay )1e ,ee4 )1ey
o.e/ )1e 5our). Co+4e:ue+)0y, )1e )r*a0 5our) 41ou0/ 1a-e )rea)e/ )1e*r Su220e6e+)a0
Co620a*+) a4 +o) ,*0e/.
B%ERY "MPORT$NT($4 )o )1e /a6a7e4 )1a) 20a*+)*,,4 50a*6 u+/er )1e*r 4u220e6e+)a0
5o620a*+), )1e*r 4)a+/ *4 )1a) )1e RTC 5o66*))e/ +o error *+ a/6*))*+7 )1e 5o620a*+) e-e+ *,
)1ey 1a/ +o) 2a*/ )1e ,*0*+7 ,ee4 /ue o+ *) 4*+5e 4u51 ,ee4 5o+4)*)u)e/ a 0*e+ a+y.ay o+ )1e
9u/76e+) a.ar/.
Bu) )1*4 a,)er&9u/76e+) 0*e+, .1*51 "MP!"ES )1a)
A1D 2ay6e+) /e2e+/4 o+ a 4u55e44,u0 e=e5u)*o+ o, )1e 9u/76e+),
A2D a220*e4 )o 5a4e4 .1ere )1e ,*0*+7 ,ee4 .ere *+5orre5)0y a44e44e/ or 2a*/,
A>D .1ere )1e 5our) 1a4 /*45re)*o+ )o ,*= )1e a6ou+) o, )1e a.ar/.
I

No+e o, )1e4e 5*r5u64)a+5e4 ob)a*+ *+ )1*4 5a4e.
B%ERY "MPORT$NT( ere, )1e 4u220e6e+)a0 5o620a*+) 42e5*,*e/ ,ro6 )1e be7*++*+7 )1e a5)ua0
/a6a7e4 )1a) )1e 20a*+)*,,4 4ou71) a7a*+4) )1e Ba+<. S)*00 20a*+)*,,4 2a*/ +o ,*0*+7 ,ee4 o+ )1e
4a6e. (nd, $hile petitioners clai" that the% $ere $illin& to pa% the additional fees, the% &ave no
reason for their o"ission nor offered to pa% the sa"e. The% "erel% said that the% did not %et pa% the
fees because the RT! had not assessed the" for it. 1ut a supple"ental co"plaint is li6e an%
co"plaint and the rule is that the filin& fees due on a co"plaint need to be paid upon its filin&.
;
T1e
ru0e4 /o +o) re:u*re )1e 5our) )o 6a<e 42e5*a0 a44e446e+)4 *+ 5a4e4 o, 4u220e6e+)a0
5o620a*+)4.C
B"MPORT$NT( To a&&ravate plaintiffs) o"ission, althou&h the 1an6 brou&ht up the -uestion of their
failure to pa% additional filin& fees in its "otion for reconsideration, plaintiffs "ade no effort to "a6e
at least a late pa%"ent before the case could be sub"itted for decision, assu"in& of course that the
prescription of their action had not then set it in. !learl%, plaintiffs have no e'cuse for their
continuous failure to pa% the fees the% o$ed the court. !onse-uentl%, )1e )r*a0 5our) 41ou0/ 1a-e
)rea)e/ )1e*r Su220e6e+)a0 Co620a*+) a4 +o) ,*0e/.C
B"MPORT$NT( Plaintiffs of course point out that the 1an6 itself raised the issue of non<pa%"ent of
additional filin& fees onl% after the RT! had rendered its decision in the case. The i"plication is that
the 1an6 should be dee"ed to have $aived its ob*ection to such o"ission. Bu) *) *4 +o) ,or a 2ar)y
)o )1e 5a4e or e-e+ ,or )1e )r*a0 5our) )o .a*-e )1e 2ay6e+) o, )1e a//*)*o+a0 ,*0*+7 ,ee4 /ue o+
)1e 4u220e6e+)a0 5o620a*+). O+0y )1e Su2re6e Cour) 5a+ 7ra+) e=e62)*o+4 )o )1e 2ay6e+) o,
)1e ,ee4 /ue )1e 5our)4 a+/ )1e4e e=e62)*o+4 are e6bo/*e/ *+ *)4 ru0e4.C
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
S!OND DIVISION
G.R. No. 135147 ?u0y 9, 200I
P"!"PP"NE F"RST "NSUR$NCE CO., "NC Petitioners,
vs.
PYR$M"# !OG"ST"CS $N# TRUCL"NG CORPOR$T"ON Respondent.
D ! I S I O N
C$RP"O MOR$!ES, J.:
"SSUES(
B%ERY "MPORT$NT( F1e)1er re42o+/e+), Pyra6*/ !o7*4)*54 a+/ Tru5<*+7 Cor2ora)*o+
APyra6*/D, $hich filed a co"plaint /e+o6*+a)e/ a4 o+e ,or 42e5*,*5 2er,or6a+5e a+/ /a6a7e4,
a&ainst petitioners Philippine 7irst Insurance !o"pan%, Inc. 4Philippine 7irst0 before the RT! of
Ma6ati,2a*/ )1e 5orre5) /o5<e) ,ee.
", *+ )1e +e7a)*-e, .1e)1er )1e 5o620a*+) 41ou0/ be /*46*44e/ or Pyra6*/ 5a+ 4)*00 be or/ere/
)o 2ay )1e ,ee.9
F$CTS(
Pyra6*/ 4ou71) )o re5o-er )1e 2ro5ee/4 o, ).o *+4ura+5e 2o0*5*e4 *44ue/ )o *) b% Philippine
7irst. Despite de"ands, petitioners alle&edl% failed to settle the", hence, it filed the co"plaint
sub*ect of the present petition.
P%ra"id alle&ed that its deliver% van bearin& license plate nu"ber PH?<:5: $hich $as loaded $ith
&oods belon&in& to !alifornia Manufacturin& !orporation valued at P;/3,.5;./3 left the !M!
1icutan #arehouse bu) )1e -a+, )o7e)1er .*)1 )1e 7oo/4, ,a*0e/ )o rea51 *)4 /e4)*+a)*o+ a+/ *)4
/r*-er a+/ 1e02er .ere +o.1ere )o be ,ou+/, )o *)4 /a6a7e a+/ 2re9u/*5e+ that it filed a cri"inal
co"plaint a&ainst the driver and the helper for -ualified theft, and a clai" $ith herein petitioners as
co<insurers of the lost &oods but, in violation of petitioners) underta6in& under the insurance policies,
the% refused $ithout *ust and valid reasons to co"pensate it for the loss.
P%ra"id thus pra%ed
TH(T, 8herein petitioners9 be ad*ud&ed *ointl% and severall% to pa% to 8it9, in addition to the fore&oin&,
the follo$in&,
.. T1e 4u6 o, PP 50,000.00 plus PHP .,://.// for each !ourt session attended b%
counsel until the instant 8case9 is finall% ter"inated, as and for attorne%)s fees+
2. The costs of suit8+9
=
4Cnderscorin& supplied0
and for other reliefs *ust and e-uitable in the pre"ises.
5
B"MPORT$NT( Pyra6*/ .a4 a44e44e/ P310 /o5<e) ,ee, apparentl% on the basis of the a"ount
of P:/,/// specified in the pra%er representin& attorne%)s fees, $hich it dul% paid.
:
Pyra6*/ 0a)er ,*0e/ a 14) $6e+/e/ Co620a*+)
3
5o+)a*+*+7 6*+or 51a+7e4 *+ *)4 bo/y
7
bu)
bear*+7 )1e 4a6e 2rayer.
E
1ranch .5E of the Ma6ati RT! to $hich the co"plaint $as raffled
ad"itted the ("ended !o"plaint.
;
Pe)*)*o+er4 ,*0e/ a Mo)*o+ )o #*46*44 o+ )1e 7rou+/ o,, *+)er a0*a, 0a5< o, 9ur*4/*5)*o+, Pyra6*/
+o) 1a-*+7 2a*/ )1e /o5<e) ,ee4 *+ ,u00, ar&uin& thus,
Veril%, this deliberate o"ission b% the plaintiff is clearl% intended for no other purposes than to evade
the pa%"ent of the correct filin& fee if not to "islead the doc6et cler6, in the assess"ent of the filin&
fee. In fact, the doc6et cler6 in the instant case char&ed the plaintiff a total of Php>./.// onl% as a
filin& fee, $hich she "ust have based on the a"ount of Php:/,///.// 8attorne%)s fees9
onl%.
./
4"phasis in the ori&inal+ italics and underscorin& supplied0
RTC /e+*e/ )1e Mo)*o+ )o #*46*44 filed b% petitioners insurance co"panies.
Pe)*)*o+er4 "+4ura+5e Co62a+*e4 ,*0e/ a Pe)*)*o+ ,or Cer)*orar* AF*)1 Pre0*6*+ary "+9u+5)*o+
a+/ Ur7e+) Prayer ,or Re4)ra*+*+7 Or/erD
23
.*)1 )1e C$ 2o4*+7 )1e ,o00o.*+7 ).o o, )1ree
:uer*e4, -*J,
7irst. Does 8P%ra"id)s9 deliberate o"ission to pa% the re-uired correct doc6et and filin& fee vest the
trial court 8$ith9 *urisdiction to entertain the sub*ect "atter of the instant caseF
Second. 8Is9 the instant case an action for specific perfor"ance or si"pl% one for da"a&es or
recover% of a su" of "one%F
' ' ' '
23
C$ 2ar)*a00y 7ra+)e/ 2e)*)*o+er4; 2e)*)*o+ ,or 5er)*orar* by 4e))*+7 a4*/e )1e )r*a0 9u/7e;4
a44a*0e/ or/er4 a+/ or/er*+7 Pyra6*/ )o ,*0e )1e 5orre5) /o5<e) ,ee4 .*)1*+ a rea4o+ab0e )*6e,
it holdin& that $hile the co"plaint $as deno"inated as one for specific perfor"ance, it sou&ht to
recover fro" petitioners P%ra"id)s Bclai"s arisin& fro" the sub*ect losses.B The appellate court
ratiocinated,
Pe)*)*o+er "+4ura+5e Co62a+y ,*0e/ a Mo)*o+ ,or Re5o+4*/era)*o+
=2
of the appellate court)s
decision. ") .a+)e/ Pyra6*/;4 5a4e )o be /*46*44e/ and not "erel% an order "andatin& P%ra"id
to pa% the correct doc6et fees.
P%ra"id filed its !o""ent and Opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration,
==
T1e Cour) o, $22ea04 /e+*e/ 2e)*)*o+er "+4ura+5e Co62a+y;4 Mo)*o+ ,or
Re5o+4*/era)*o++
=:
hence, the present Petition for Revie$ on !ertiorari,
=>
raisin& the issues of
$hether the appellate court erred,
"SSUE(
#*/ )1e C$ err *+ a220y*+7 )1e 0*bera0 ru0e *+ Su+ "+4ura+5e *+4)ea/ o, )1e Mar5o22er
#o5)r*+eE
SC RU!"NG( YES, )1e Mar5o22er /o5)r*+e a220*e4 *+ )1*4 5a4e be5au4e )1ere .a4 ba/ ,a*)1 o+
)1e 2ar) o, Pyra6*/. T1e 5o620a*+) o, Pyra6*/ 41ou0/ 1a-e bee+ /*46*44e/.
P%ra"id captioned its co"plaint as one for Bspecific perfor"ance and da"a&esB even if it $as, as
the alle&ations in its bod% sho$ed, see6in& in the "ain the collection of its clai"s<su"s of "one%
representin& losses the a"ount of $hich it, b% its o$n ad"ission, B6ne$.B Pyra6*/ /e0*bera)e0y
,a*0e/ )o 42e5*,y *+ *)4 2rayer *+ )1e 5o620a*+) )1e a6ou+) o, *)4 50a*64@/a6a7e4. F1e+
Pyra6*/ a6e+/e/ *)4 5o620a*+), *) 4)*00 /*/ +o) 42e5*,y, *+ *)4 2rayer, )1e a6ou+) o,
50a*64@/a6a7e4 *) .a4 4ee<*+7.C In fact it has the audacit% to infor" this !ourt, in its !o""ent on
the present Petition, that
x x x In the natural order of things, when a litigant is given the opportunity to spend less for a
docket fee after submitting his pleading for assessment by the Office of the Clerk of Court,
he would not decline it inasmuch as to request for a higher assessment under the
circumstances [for such] is against his interest and would be senseless !laced under the
same situation, petitioner[s] would certainly do likewise "o say otherwise would certainly be
dishonest,
#$
BT1*4C o+0y 41o.4 re42o+/e+);4 /*41o+e4)y a+/ 0a5< o, re7ar/ o, )1e ru0e4. Fo00o.*+7 )1*4 0*+e
o, rea4o+*+7, re42o+/e+) .ou0/ /o e-ery)1*+7 *, o+0y ,or *) )o 42e+/ 0e44 ,or )1e ,*0*+7 ,ee,
e-e+ )o )1e e=)e+) o, 5*r5u6-e+)*+7 a+/ /e,y*+7 )1e ru0e o+ )1e 2ay6e+) o, )1e ,*0*+7 ,ee.
In Taca% v. Re&ional Trial !ourt of Ta&u", Davao del Norte,
5=
the !ourt clarified the effect of the Sun
Insurance rulin& on the Manchester rulin& as follo$s,
(s $ill be noted, the re-uire"ent in !ircular No. 3 8of this !ourt $hich $as issued based on the
Manchester rulin&
55
9 that co"plaints, petitions, ans$ers, and si"ilar pleadin&s 41ou0/ 42e5*,y )1e
a6ou+) o, /a6a7e4 be*+7 2raye/ ,or +o) o+0y *+ )1e bo/y o, )1e 20ea/*+7 bu) a04o *+ )1e
2rayer, has not been altered.
#hat has been revised is the rule that subse-uent Ba"end"ent of the co"plaint or si"ilar pleadin&
$ill not thereb% vest *urisdiction in the !ourt, "uch less the pa%"ent of the doc6et fee based on the
a"ount sou&ht in the a"ended pleadin&,B the trial court no$ bein& authori@ed to allo$ pa%"ent of
the fee $ithin a reasonable ti"e but in no case be%ond the applicable prescriptive period or
re&le"entar% period. Moreover, a ne$ rule has been added, &overnin& the a$ards of clai"s not
specified in the pleadin& G i.e., da"a&es arisin& after the filin& of the co"plaint or si"ilar pleadin& G
as to $hich the additional filin& fee therefore shall constitute a lien on the *ud&"ent.
No$, under the Rules of !ourt, doc6et or filin& fees are assessed on the basis of the Bsu" clai"ed,B
on the one hand, or the Bvalue of the propert% in liti&ation or the value of the estate,B on the other. . .
F1ere )1e a5)*o+ *4 2ure0y ,or )1e re5o-ery o, 6o+ey or /a6a7e4, )1e /o5<e) ,ee4 are
a44e44e/ o+ )1e ba4*4 o, )1e a77re7a)e a6ou+) 50a*6e/, e=50u4*-e o+0y o, *+)ere4)4 a+/
5o4)4. In this case, the co"plaint or si"ilar pleadin& should, accordin& to !ircular No. 3 of this
!ourt, Bspecif% the a"ount of da"a&es bein& pra%ed for not onl% in the bod% of the pleadin& but also
in the pra%er, and said da"a&es shall be considered in the assess"ent of filin& fees in an% case.B
B%ERY "MPORT$NT( T.o 4*)ua)*o+4 6ay ar*4e.
.0 One is $here the co"plaint or si"ilar pleadin& 4e)4 ou) a 50a*6 2ure0y ,or 6o+ey a+/
/a6a7e4 a+/ )1ere *4 +o 4)a)e6e+) o, )1e a6ou+)4 be*+7 50a*6e/. In this event the rule
is that the pleadin& $ill 8+o) be a55e2)e/ +or a/6*))e/, or 41a00 o)1er.*4e be e=2u+7e/
,ro6 )1e re5or/.8 In other $ords, the co"plaint or pleadin& "a% be dis"issed, or the clai"s
as to $hich a"ounts are unspecified "a% be e'pun&ed, althou&h as aforestated the !ourt
"a%, on "otion, per"it a"end"ent of the co"plaint and pa%"ent of the fees provided the
clai" has not in the "eanti"e beco"e ti"e<barred.
20 The other is $here the 20ea/*+7 /oe4 42e5*,y )1e a6ou+) o, e-ery 50a*6, bu) )1e ,ee4
2a*/ are *+4u,,*5*e+)M a+/ 1ere a7a*+, the rule no$ is that the court "a% allo$ a reasonable
ti"e for the pa%"ent of the prescribed fees, or the balance thereof, and upon such pa%"ent,
the defect is cured and the court "a% properl% ta6e co&ni@ance of the action,u+0e44 *+ )1e
6ea+)*6e 2re45r*2)*o+ 1a4 4e) *+ a+/ 5o+4e:ue+)0y barre/ )1e r*71) o, a5)*o+.
5:

' ' ' '
(pparentl%, the trial court "isinterpreted para&raph = of the 8%un Insurance9 rulin& of this !ourt
$herein it stated that B$here the *ud&"ent a$ards a clai" not specified in the pleadin&, or if
specified, the sa"e has been left for the deter"ination of the court, the additional filin& fee therefor
shall constitute a lien on the *ud&"entB b% considerin& it to "ean that $here in the bod% and pra%er
of the co"plaint there is a pra%er ''' the a"ount of $hich is left to the discretion of the !ourt, there
is no need to specif% the a"ount bein& sou&ht, and that an% a$ard thereafter shall constitute a lien
on the *ud&"ent.
' ' ' #hile it is true that the deter"ination of certain da"a&es ' ' ' is left to the sound discretion of
the court, it is the /u)y o, )1e 2ar)*e4 clai"in& such da"a&es )o 42e5*,y the a"ount sou&ht on the
basis of $hich the court "a% "a6e a proper deter"ination, and for the proper assess"ent of the
appropriate doc6et fees. The e=5e2)*o+conte"plated as to clai"s not specified or to clai"s
althou&h specified are left for deter"ination of the court isli"ited onl% to an% da"a&es that "a%
arise a,)er the filin& of the co"plaint or si"ilar pleadin& for then it $ill not be possible for the
clai"ant to specif% nor speculate as to the a"ount thereof. 4"phasis and underscorin& supplied0
If respondent P%ra"id)s counsel had onl% been forthri&ht in draftin& the co"plaint and ta6in& the
cud&els for his client and the trial *ud&e assiduous in appl%in& !ircular No. 3 vis a vis prevailin&
*urisprudence, the precious ti"e of this !ourt, as $ell as of that of the appellate court, $ould not
have been unnecessaril% sapped.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 17>002 ?u0y 4, 200I
BEN?$M"N B$UT"ST$, petitioner,
vs.
S"R!EY G. UN$NGST a+/ OTER UNLNOFN PERSONS, respondents.
D ! I S I O N
REYES, R.T., J.(
TE 2re4u62)*o+ o, e:u*)ab0e 6or)7a7e *62o4e4 a bur/e+ o+ )1e buyer )o 2re4e+) 50ear
e-*/e+5e )o rebu) *). He "ust overthro$ it, lest it persist.
.
To overturn that prima facie presu"ption,
the bu%er needs to adduce substantial and credible evidence to prove that the contract $as a bona
fide deed of sale $ith ri&ht to repurchase.
This petition for revie$ on certiorari i"pu&ns the Decision
2
of the !ourt of (ppeals 4!(0 in !(<A.R.
!V No. E:;52
=
$hich reversed and set aside that
5
of the Re&ional Trial !ourt 4RT!0 in an action for
specific perfor"ance or recover% of possession, for su" of "one%, for consolidation of o$nerships
and da"a&es.
F$CTS
a6*0)o+ Sa0a< rented a car fro" G$B Re+)&$&Car, a car rental shop o.+e/ by 2e)*)*o+er
Be+9a6*+ Bau)*4)a. The lease $as for three 4=0 consecutive da%s at a rental fee of P.,///.// per
da%.
:
Ho$ever, Sala6 failed to return the car after three 4=0 da%s pro"ptin& petitioner to file a
co"plaint a&ainst hi" for estafa, violation of 1atas Pa"bansa 1l&. 22 and carnappin&.
>
Sala6 and his co""on<la$ $ife, $ere arrested b% officers of the !ri"inal Investi&ation Service
Aroup 4!ISA0 of the Philippine National Police.
The ne't da%, petitioner de"anded fro" Sala6 at the !ISA Office the su" of P2=2,=32.// as
pa%"ent for car rental fees, fees incurred in locatin& the car, attorne%Hs fees, capital &ains ta',
transfer ta', and other incidental e'penses.
3
Sala6 and respondent e'pressed $illin&ness to pa% but since the% $ere then short on cash, Sa0a<
2ro2o4e/ )o 4e00 )o 2e)*)*o+er a 1ou4e a+/ 0o) )*)0e/ *+ )1e +a6e o, re42o+/e+). Petitioner
$elco"ed the proposal after consultin& his $ife, !%nthia. !%nthia, on the other hand, further a&reed
to pa% the "ort&a&e loan of respondent over the sub*ect propert% to a certain Io*o ?ee in the a"ount
of P2;:,///.// as the propert% $as then set to be publicl% auctioned on 7ebruar% .3, .;;3.
E
To for"ali@e their a6*5ab0e 4e))0e6e+), !%nthia, Sala6 and respondent e'ecuted a $ritten
a&ree"ent.
;
The% stipulated that respondent $ould sell, sub*ect to repurchase, her residential
propert% in favor of !%nthia for the total a"ount of P:23,=32.// bro6en do$n, as follo$s,
4.0 P2;:,///.// for the a"ount paid b% !%nthia to ?ee to release the "ort&a&e on the propert%+ and
420 P2=2,=32.//, $hich is the a"ount due to A(1 Rent<(<!ar. !%nthia also a&reed to desist fro"
pursuin& the co"plaint a&ainst Sala6 and respondent.
./
Re42o+/e+) a+/ 2e)*)*o+er a04o e=e5u)e/ a 4e2ara)e /ee/ o, 4a0e .*)1 r*71) )o re2ur51a4e.
Re42o+/e+) ,a*0e/ )o re2ur51a4e )1e 2ro2er)y .*)1*+ )1e 4)*2u0a)e/ 2er*o/. (s a result,
petitioner filed, on Iune :, .;;E, a co"plaint for specific perfor"ance or recover% of possession, for
su" of "one%, for consolidation of o$nership and da"a&es a&ainst respondent and other unna"ed
persons before the RT! of Olon&apo !it%.
In his co"plaint,
.=
petitioner alle&ed, a"on& others, that after respondent failed to repurchase the
sub*ect realt%, he caused the re&istration of the deed of sale $ith the Re&ister of Deeds and the
transfer of the ta' declarations in his na"e+ that respondent failed to pa% the capital &ains ta'es and
update the real estate ta'es forcin& hi" to pa% said a"ounts in the su" of P3.,.2;./:
and P..,;;=.32, respectivel%+ and that respondent violated the ter"s of the deed $hen she, as $ell
as the other unna"ed persons, refused to vacate the sub*ect propert% despite repeated de"ands.
.5
Petitioner ,*0e/ a+ $MEN#E# 5o620a*+),
.>
reiteratin& his previous alle&ations but $ith the added
pra%er for consolidation of o$nership pursuant to (rticle .>/3 of the !ivil !ode.
.3
RTC re+/ere/ a /e5*4*o+ *+ ,a-or o, Bau)*4)a A5ar re+)a0 bu4*+e44 o.+erD.
Re42o+/e+)4 ,a*0e/ )o *+)er2o4e a )*6e0y a22ea0. Ho$ever, on Septe"ber ./, 2//5, respondent
U+a+74) ,*0e/ a Pe)*)*o+ ,or Re0*e, pursuant to Section =E of the .;;3 Rules on !ivil Procedure.
She ar&ued that she learned of the decision of the RT! onl% on Septe"ber >, 2//5 $hen she
received a cop% of the "otion for e'ecution filed b% petitioner.
2.
T1e RTC 7ra+)e/ )1e 2e)*)*o+ ,or re0*e,.
B%ERY "MPORT$NT( Pe)*)*o+er Bau)*4)a 6o-e/ ,or )1e /*46*44a0 o, re42o+/e+)G4 2e)*)*o+ o+
)1e 7rou+/ )1a) )1e 0a))er 2a*/ a+ *+4u,,*5*e+) 4u6 o, P200.00 a4 /o5<e) ,ee4.
22
C
It appears that respondent Cnan&st initiall% paid P2//.// as doc6et fees as this $as the a"ount
assessed b% the !ler6 of !ourt of the RT!.
2=
Said a"ount $as insufficient as the proper filin& fees
a"ount to P.,3.:.//. Ne-er)1e0e44, )1e 5orre5) a6ou+) .a4 4ub4e:ue+)0y 2a*/ by 4a*/
re42o+/e+) o+ February 22, 2005.
25
"+ )1e*r 5o66e+),
25
re42o+/e+)4 5ou+)ere/ )1a) )1ey 41ou0/ +o) be ,au0)e/ ,or 2ay*+7
/e,*5*e+) /o5<e) ,ee4 a4 *) .a4 /ue )o a+ erro+eou4 a44e446e+) o, )1e C0er< o, Cour).
23
RT! rendered a decision in favor 1autista.
Respondents filed a notice of appeal.
Respondents contended before the !( that the RT! erred in, 4.0 not annullin& the deed of sale $ith
ri&ht to repurchase+ 420 declarin& that the deed of sale $ith ri&ht to repurchase is a real contract of
sale+ 4=0 orderin& the consolidation of o$nership of the sub*ect propert% in the na"e of
petitioner.
2;
The% ar&ued that respondent Cnan&stHs consent to the deed of sale $ith ri&ht to
repurchase $as procured under duress and that even assu"in& that her consent $as freel% &iven,
the contract parta6es of the nature of an e-uitable "ort&a&e.
=/
O+ )1e o)1er 1a+/, 2e)*)*o+er *+4*4)e/, a6o+7 o)1er4, )1a) a0)1ou71 )1e 2e)*)*o+ ,or re0*e, o,
re42o+/e+)4 .a4 ,*0e/ o+ )*6e, )1e 2ro2er ,*0*+7 ,ee4 ,or 4a*/ 2e)*)*o+ .ere 2a*/ beyo+/ )1e
30&/ay re70e6e+)ary 2er*o/. He posited that *urisdiction is ac-uired b% the court over the action
onl% upon full pa%"ent of prescribed doc6et fees.
=.
C$ re-er4e/ a+/ 4e) a4*/e )1e RTC 9u/76e+).
==

T1e C$ /e50are/ )1a) )1e #ee/ o, Sa0e .*)1 R*71) o, Re2ur51a4e e=e5u)e/ by )1e 2ar)*e4 .a4
a+ e:u*)ab0e 6or)7a7e. On the procedural aspect pertainin& to the petition for relief filed b%
respondent Cnan&st, the !( ruled that Bthe trial court, in optin& to appl% the rules liberall%, cannot be
faulted for &ivin& due course to the -uestioned petition for relief $hich enabled appellants to
interpose the instant appeal.B
C$ /e+*e/ Bau)*4)a;4 MR.
Bau)*4)a .e+) u2 )o )1e SC -*a R45.
"SSUES
Petitioner has resorted to the present recourse under Rule 5:, assi&nin& to the !( the follo$in&
errors,
AaD T1e o+orab0e Cour) o, $22ea04 5o66*))e/ 7ra-e error *+ ,*+/*+7 )1a) )1e
re42o+/e+) 2er,e5)e/ a+ a22ea0 -*a Pe)*)*o+ ,or Re0*e, To Be $b0e To $22ea0
?u/76e+) e-e+ .1e+ )1e 2ro2er /o5<e) ,ee4 .ere 2a*/ beyo+/ )1e 2er*o/
2re45r*be/ )o br*+7 4u51 a5)*o+
SC RU!"NG
B%ERY "MPORT$NT( T1e SC a7ree/ .*)1 re42o+/e+)4. T1e*r ,a*0ure )o 2ay )1e 5orre5) a6ou+)
o, /o5<e) ,ee4 .a4 /ue )o a ?UST"F"$B!E RE$SON.C
The ri&ht to appeal is a purel% statutor% ri&ht. Not bein& a natural ri&ht or a part of due process, the
ri&ht to appeal "a% be e'ercised onl% in the "anner and in accordance $ith the rules provided
therefor.
5.
7or this reason, pa%"ent of the full a"ount of the appellate court doc6et and other la$ful
fees $ithin the re&le"entar% period is "andator% and *urisdictional.
52
Nevertheless, as this !ourt
ruled in &ranas v 'ndona,
5=
)1e 4)r*5) a220*5a)*o+ o, )1e 9ur*4/*5)*o+a0 +a)ure o, )1e abo-e ru0e
o+ 2ay6e+) o, a22e00a)e /o5<e) ,ee4 M$Y BE M"T"G$TE# u+/er e=5e2)*o+a0 5*r5u64)a+5e4
TO BETTER SER%E TE "NTEREST OF ?UST"CE. It is al$a%s $ithin the po$er of this !ourt to
suspend its o$n rules, or to e'cept a particular case fro" their operation, $henever the purposes of
*ustice re-uire it.
55
B%ERY "MPORT$NT( (s earl% as .;5>, in Segovia v. Barrios,
5E
the !ourt ruled that $here an
appellant in GOO# F$"T paid less than the correct a"ount for the doc6et fee because that $as the
a"ount he $as re-uired to pa% b% the cler6 of court, and he pro"ptl% paid the balance, it is error to
dis"iss his appeal because B4e0ver% citi@en has the ri&ht to assu"e and trust that a public officer
char&ed b% la$ $ith certain duties 6no$s his duties and perfor"s the" in accordance $ith la$. To
penali@e such citi@en for rel%in& upon said officer in all &ood faith is repu&nant to *ustice.B
5;
C
Te51+*5a0*)y a+/ 2ro5e/ura0 *62er,e5)*o+4 41ou0/ )1u4 +o) 4er-e a4 ba4e4 o, /e5*4*o+4.
50
"+
)1a) .ay, )1e e+/4 o, 9u4)*5e .ou0/ be be))er 4er-e/. For, *+/ee/, )1e 7e+era0 ob9e5)*-e o,
2ro5e/ure *4 )o ,a5*0*)a)e )1e a220*5a)*o+ o, 9u4)*5e )o )1e r*-a0 50a*64 o, 5o+)e+/*+7 2ar)*e4,
bear*+7 a0.ay4 *+ 6*+/ )1a) 2ro5e/ure *4 +o) )o 1*+/er bu) )o 2ro6o)e )1e a/6*+*4)ra)*o+ o,
9u4)*5e.
51
#e &o no$ to the cru' of the petition. Should the deed of sale $ith ri&ht to repurchase e'ecuted b%
the parties be construed as an e-uitable "ort&a&eF This is the pivotal -uestion here.
(ccordin& to petitioner, the deed should not be construed as an e-uitable "ort&a&e as it does not
fall under an% of the instances "entioned in (rticle .>/2 of the !ivil !ode $here the a&ree"ent can
be construed as an e-uitable "ort&a&e. He added that the Blan&ua&e and ter"s of the Deed of Sale
$ith Ri&ht to Repurchase e'ecuted b% respondent in favor of the petition are clear and une-uivocal.
Said contract "ust be construed $ith its literal sense.B
:2
#e C$NNOT a&ree.
Respondent is correct in alle&in& that the deed of sale $ith ri&ht to repurchase -ualifies as an
e-uitable "ort&a&e under (rticle .>/2. She "erel% secured the pa%"ent of the unpaid car rentals
and the a"ount advanced b% petitioner to Io*o ?ee.
The transaction bet$een the parties is one of e-uitable "ort&a&e and not a sale $ith ri&ht to
purchase as "aintained b% petitioners. (rticle .>/2 of the Ne$ !ivil !ode provides that the contract
is presu"ed to be an e-uitable "ort&a&e in an% of the follo$in& cases,
4>0 "+ a+y o)1er 5a4e .1ere *) 6ay be ,a*r0y *+,erre/ )1a) )1e rea0 *+)e+)*o+ o, )1e
2ar)*e4 *4 )1a) )1e )ra+4a5)*o+ 41a00 4e5ure )1e 2ay6e+) o, a /eb) or )1e 2er,or6a+5e
o, a+y o)1er ob0*7a)*o+.
The conclusion that the deed of sale $ith ri&ht to repurchase is an e-uitable "ort&a&e is buttressed
b% the follo$in&,
F*r4), before e'ecutin& the deed, respondent and Sala6 $ere under police custod% due to the
co"plaint lod&ed a&ainst the" b% petitioner. The% $ere sorel% pressed for "one%, as the% $ould not
be released fro" custod% unless the% paid petitioner. It $as at this point that respondent $as
constrained to e'ecute a deed of sale $ith ri&ht to repurchase. Respondent $as in no position
$hatsoever to bar&ain $ith their creditor, petitioner. Nel consensui ta" contrariu" est -ua" vis at-ui
"etus. There can be no consent $hen under force or duress. Bale wala ang pagsang-ayon kung
ito'y nakuha sa pamimilit o paraang di malaya.
Se5o+/, petitioner allo$ed respondent and Sala6 to retain the possession of the propert% despite
the e'ecution of the deed. In fact, respondent and Sala6 $ere not bound to deliver the possession of
the propert% to petitioner if the% $ould pa% hi" the a"ount he de"anded.
:>
B"MPORT$NT( F1ere *+ a 5o+)ra5) o, 4a0e .*)1 pacto de retro, )1e -e+/or re6a*+4 *+
2o44e44*o+, a4 a 0e44ee or o)1er.*4e, )1e 5o+)ra5) 41a00 be 2re4u6e/ )o be a+ e:u*)ab0e
6or)7a7e.
:3
The reason for the presu"ption lies in the fact that in a contract of sale $ith pacto de
retro, the le&al title to the propert% is i""ediatel% transferred to the vendee, sub*ect to the vendorHs
ri&ht to redee". Retention, therefore, b% the vendor of the possession of the propert% is inconsistent
$ith the vendeeHs ac-uisition of the ri&ht of o$nership under a true sale.
:E
It discloses, in the alle&ed
vendee, a lac6 of interest in the propert% that belies the truthfulness of the sale a retro.
:;
C
(pparentl%, the deed purports to be a sale $ith ri&ht to purchase. Ho$ever, since it $as e'ecuted in
consideration of the aforesaid loans andJor indebtedness, said contract is indubitabl% an e-uitable
"ort&a&e. The rule is fir"l% settled that $henever it is clearl% sho$n that a deed of sale $ith pacto
de retro, re&ular on its face, is &iven as securit% for a loan, it "ust be re&arded as an e-uitable
"ort&a&e.
>.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
S!OND DIVISION
G.R. No. 202920 O5)ober 2, 201>
R"C$R# CU$, Petitioner,
vs.
TE ENECUT"%E ?U#GE, METROPO!"T$N TR"$! COURT, M$N"!$, Respondent.
D ! I S I O N
PERE', J.:
(t bench is a Pe)*)*o+ ,or Re-*e. o+ Cer)*orar*,
.
assailin& the Orders
2
dated 2> Iune 2/.2 and 2>
Iul% 2/.2 of the 'ecutive Iud&e of the Metropolitan Trial !ourt 4MeT!0, Manila, in CDK Nos.
.2//.5:3 to ;>.
F$CTS,
Pe)*)*o+er R*51ar/ C1ua filed before the Office of the !it% Prosecutor 4O!P0 of Manila, a co"plaint
char&in& one !e))y Sy Ga+ of fort% 440D 5ou+)4 o, -*o0a)*o+ o, Ba)a4 Pa6ba+4a B*0a+7 ABP B07.D
22 or the 1ouncin& !hec6s ?a$.
=
(fter conductin& preli"inar% investi&ation, the O!P found probable
cause and, on 22 March 2/.2, filed fort% 45/0 counts of violation of 1P 1l&. 22 before the MeT!.
5
!onse-uentl%, the MeT! infor"ed petitioner that 1e 1a4 )o 2ay a )o)a0 o, P540,33I.00 a4 ,*0*+7
,ee4 for all the fort% 45/0 counts of violation of 1P 1l&. 22.
:
7indin& the said a"ount to be be%ond his
"eans, petitioner consulted $ith the MeT! cler6 of court to as6 $hether he could pa% filin& fees on a
per case basis instead of bein& re-uired to pa% the total filin& fees for all the 1P 1l&. 22 cases all at
once.
>
T1e MeTC 50er< o, 5our) o2*+e/ )1a) 2e)*)*o+er 5ou0/ +o).
7
Pe)*)*o+er .a4 )1u4 u+ab0e )o
2ay a+y ,*0*+7 ,ee4.
Due to non<pa%"ent of the re-uired filin& fees, the MeT! desi&nated the fort% 45/0 counts of
violation of 1P 1l&. 22 as u+/o5<e)e/ 5a4e4 . Subse-uentl%, the O!P "oved for consolidation of
the said cases.
E
On .E (pril 2/.2, petitioner filed before the 'ecutive Iud&e of the MeT! a "otion entitled BCr&ent
Motion to (llo$ Private !o"plainant to Pa% 7ilin& 7ee on a Per !ase 1asisB 4Cr&ent Motion0.
;
In it,
petitioner reiterated his re-uest that he be allo$ed to pa% filin& fees on a per case basis instead of
bein& re-uired to pa% the total a"ount of filin& fees in its entiret%.
On 2> Iune 2/.2, the 'ecutive Iud&e issued an Order den%in& petitioner)s Cr&ent Motion. In
rebuffin& petitioner)s Cr&ent Motion, )1e E=e5u)*-e ?u/7e o, )1e MeTC ra)*o5*+a)e/ )1a) 7ra+)*+7
2e)*)*o+er;4 20ea .ou0/ 5o+4)*)u)e a /e,er6e+) *+ )1e 2ay6e+) o, ,*0*+7 ,ee4 )1a), *+ )ur+,
5o+)ra-e+e4 Se5)*o+ 1AbD o, )1e Ru0e 111 o, )1e Ru0e4 o, Cour).
./
Petitioner "oved for reconsideration, but to no avail.
Hence, this appeal.
SC RU!"NG
Prefatoril%, it "ust be pointed out that petitioner availed of the .ro+7 re6e/y in assailin& the Orders
dated 2> Iune 2/.2 and 2> Iul% 2/.2 of the 'ecutive Iud&e of the MeT! via the present petition
for revie$ on certiorari. T1e a44a*0e/ or/er4 are +o), )e51+*5a00y, ,*+a0 or/er4 )1a) are
a22ea0ab0e,
..
let alone the proper sub*ects of an appeal b% certiorari.
.2
The assailed orders do not, at
least for the "o"ent, co"pletel% dispose of the 1.P. 22 cases filed before the MeT!.
T1e 5orre5) re6e/y for the petitioner, in vie$ of the unavailabilit% of an appeal or an% other re"ed%
in the ordinar% course of la$, *4 a 5er)*orar* 2e)*)*o+ u+/er Ru0e 35 o, )1e Ru0e4 o, Cour).
.=
1ut
then a&ain, the petitioner should have filed such a petition, not directl% $ith this !ourt, but before the
appropriate Re&ional Trial !ourt pursuant to the principle of hierarch% of courts.
.5
In the $ei&htier interest of substantial *ustice, ho$ever, this !ourt for&ives such procedural lapses
and treats the instant appeal as a certiorari petition filed properl% before this !ourt. To this !ourt, the
&rave abuse of discretion on the part of the 'ecutive Iud&e $as patent on the undisputed facts of
this case and is serious enou&h to $arrant a "o"entar% deviation fro" the procedural nor".
Thus, #e co"e to the focal issue of $hether the 'ecutive Iud&e of the MeT! co""itted &rave
abuse of discretion, in li&ht of the facts and circu"stances herein obtainin&, in refusin& petitioner)s
re-uest of pa%in& filin& fees on a per case basis.
B%ERY "MPORT$NT( Fe a+4.er *+ )1e a,,*r6a)*-e. Fe 7ra+) )1e 2e)*)*o+. AEr7o, )1e SC a00o.e/
)1e 2ay6e+) o, ,*0*+7 ,ee4 o+ a 2er 5a4e ba4*4DC
"+ 2ro2o4*+7 )o 2ay ,*0*+7 ,ee4 o+ a 2er 5a4e ba4*4, 2e)*)*o+er .a4 +o) )ry*+7 )o e-a/e or /e+y
1*4 ob0*7a)*o+ )o 2ay ,or )1e ,*0*+7 ,ee4 ,or a00 ,or)y A40D 5ou+)4 o, -*o0a)*o+ o, BP B07. 22 ,*0e/
be,ore )1e MeTC. e, *+ ,a5), a5<+o.0e/7e4 4u51 ob0*7a)*o+. e, *+ ,a5), a/6*)4 )1a) 1e *4
*+5a2ab0e o, ,u0,*00*+7 4u51 ob0*7a)*o+ *+ *)4 e+)*re)y.
Rather, $hat petitioner is as6in& is that he at least be allo$ed to pursue so"e of the cases, the filin&
fees of $hich he is capable of financin&. Petitioner "anifests that, &iven his current financial status,
he si"pl% cannot afford the filin& fees for all the fort% 45/0 1P 1l&. 22 cases.
Fe 4ee +o)1*+7 .ro+7 or *00e7a0 *+ 7ra+)*+7 2e)*)*o+er;4 re:ue4).
F*r4). T1e E=e5u)*-e ?u/7e erre/ .1e+ 41e )rea)e/ )1e e+)*reP540,33I.00 a4 o+e *+/*-*4*b0e
ob0*7a)*o+, .1e+ )1a) ,*7ure .a4 +o)1*+7 bu) )1e 4u6 o, *+/*-*/ua0 ,*0*+7 ,ee4 /ue ,or ea51
5ou+) o, -*o0a)*o+ o, BP B07.22 ,*0e/ be,ore )1e MeTC. Gra+)*+7 2e)*)*o+er;4 re:ue4) .ou0/ +o)
5o+4)*)u)e a /e,er6e+) *+ )1e 2ay6e+) o, ,*0*+7 ,ee4, ,or )1e 0a))er 50ear0y *+)e+/4 )o 2ay *+ ,u00
)1e ,*0*+7 ,ee4 o, 4o6e, a0be*) +o) a00, o, )1e 5a4e4 ,*0e/.
7ilin& fees, $hen re-uired, are assessed and beco"e due for each initiator% pleadin& filed.
.:
In
cri"inal actions, these pleadin&s refer to the infor"ation filed in court.
In the instant case, there are a total of fort% 45/0 counts of violation of 1P 1l&. 22 that $as filed
before the MeT!.()wphi((nd each of the fort% 45/0 $as, in fact, assessed its filin& fees, individuall%, based
on the a"ount of chec6 one covers.
.>
Cnder the rules of cri"inal procedure, the filin& of the fort%45/0
counts is e-uivalent to the filin& of fort% 45/0 different infor"ations, as each count represents an
independent violation of 1P 1l&. 22.
.3
7ilin& fees are, therefore, due for each count and "a% be paid
for each count separatel%.
Second. In an effort to *ustif% her refusal of petitioner)s re-uest, the 'ecutive Iud&e further ar&ues
that since all fort% 45/0 counts of violation of 1P 1l&. 22 $ere brou&ht about b% a sin&le co"plaint
filed before the O!P and are no$ consolidated before the court, the pa%"ent of their tilin& fees
should be "ade for all or none at all.
.E
That all fort% 45/0 counts of violation of 1P 1l&. 22 all e"anated fro" a sin&le co"plaint filed in the
O!P is "RRE!E%$NT. The fact re"ains that there are still fort% 45/0 counts of violation of 1P 1l&. 22
that $ere filed before the MeT! and, as a conse-uence, fort% 45/0 individual filin& fees to be paid.
Neither $ould the consolidation of all fort% 45/0 counts "a6e an% difference. !onsolidation unifies
cri"inal cases involvin& related offenses onl% for purposes of trial.
.;
B%ERY
"MPORT$NT, !onsolidation does NOT transfor" the tilin& fees due for each case consolidated into
one indivisible fee.9
Third. (llo$in& petitioner to pa% for the tilin& fees of so"e of the fort% 4 5/0 counts of violation of 1P
1i&. 22 filed before the MeT!, $ill concededl% result into the absolute non<pa%"ent of the filin& fees
of the rest. The fate of the cases $hich filin& fees $ere not paid, ho$ever, is alread% the concern of
the MeT!.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
N 1(N!
$.M. NO. 05&10&20&SC Mar51 10, 2010
"N RE( ENEMPT"ON OF TE N$T"ON$! POFER CORPOR$T"ON FROM P$YMENT OF F"!"NG@
#OCLET FEES
R S O ? C T I O N
MEN#O'$, J.:
The Na)*o+a0 Po.er Cor2ora)*o+ ANPCD 4ee<4 50ar*,*5a)*o+ ,ro6 )1e Cour) o+ .1e)1er or +o) *)
*4 e=e62) ,ro6 )1e 2ay6e+) o, ,*0*+7 ,ee4, a22ea0 bo+/4 a+/ 4u2er4e/ea4 bo+/4.
On Dece"ber >, 2//:, the !ourt issued (.M. No. /:<./<2/<S!, In re, 'e"ption of the National
Po$er !orporation fro" the Pa%"ent of 7ilin&JDoc6et 7ees, on the basis of Section .=, Republic (ct
No. >=;: 4(n (ct Revisin& the !harter of the National Po$er !orporation0. It reads,
The !ourt Resolved, upon the reco""endation of the Office of the !ourt (d"inistrator, to
D!?(R that the National Po$er !orporation 4NP!0 is still e'e"pt fro" the pa%"ent of filin& fees,
appeals bond, and supersedeas bonds.
On October 23, 2//;, ho$ever, the !ourt issued (.M. No. /:<./<2/<S! statin& that,
The !ourt Resolved, upon reco""endation of the !o""ittee on the Revision of the Rules of !ourt,
to DNL the re-uest of the National Po$er !orporation 4NP!0 for e'e"ption fro" the pa%"ent of
filin& fees pursuant to Section ./ of Republic (ct No. >=;:, as a"ended b% Section .= of
Presidential Decree No. ;=E. The re-uest appears to run counter to Section :4:0, (rticle VIII of the
!onstitution, in the rule<"a6in& po$er of the Supre"e !ourt over the rules on pleadin&, practice and
procedure in all courts, $hich includes the sole po$er to fi' the filin& fees of cases in courts.
Hence, the sub*ect letter of NP! for clarification as to its e'e"ption fro" the pa%"ent of filin& fees
and court fees.
Section 22 of Rule .5. reads,
Sec. 22. Aovern"ent e'e"pt. G The Republic of the Philippines, its a&encies and instru"entalities
are e'e"pt fro" pa%in& the le&al fees provided in this rule. !o5a0 7o-er+6e+) u+*)4 a+/
7o-er+6e+)&o.+e/ or 5o+)ro00e/ 5or2ora)*o+4 .*)1 or .*)1ou) *+/e2e+/e+) 51ar)er4 are NOT
e=e62) ,ro6 2ay*+7 4u51 ,ee4. Ae621a4*4 4u220*e/D
Section 3/ of Republic (ct No. ;.=> 4lectric Po$er Industr% Refor" (ct of 2//.0, on privati@ation of
NP! assets, e'pressl% states that the NP! Bshall re"ain as a national &overn"ent<o$ned and
controlled corporation.B
B%ERY "MPORT$NT( T1u4, NPC *4 NOT e=e62) ,ro6 2ay6e+) o, ,*0*+7 ,ee4.C
The non<e'e"ption of NP! is further fortified b% the pro"ul&ation on 7ebruar% .., 2/./ of (.M. No.
/E<2</.</, In re, Petition for Reco&nition of the 'e"ption of the Aovern"ent Service Insurance
S%ste" 4ASIS0 fro" Pa%"ent of ?e&al 7ees. In said case, the !ourt, citin& che&ara% v. Secretar%
of Iustice,
.
stressed that the .;E3 !onstitution too6 a$a% the po$er of !on&ress to repeal, alter or
supple"ent rules concernin& pleadin&, practice, and procedure+ and that the po$er to pro"ul&ate
these rules is no lon&er shared b% the !ourt $ith !on&ress and the 'ecutive, thus,
Since the pa%"ent of le&al fees is a vital co"ponent of the rules pro"ul&ated b% this !ourt
concernin& pleadin&, practice and procedure, it cannot be validl% annulled, chan&ed or "odified b%
!on&ress. (s one of the safe&uards of this !ourt)s institutional independence, the po$er to
pro"ul&ate rules of pleadin&, practice and procedure is no$ the !ourt)s e'clusive do"ain. That
po$er is no lon&er shared b% this !ourt $ith !on&ress, "uch less the 'ecutive.
Spea6in& for the !ourt, then (ssociate Iustice 4no$ !hief Iustice0 Re%nato S. Puno traced the
histor% of the rule<"a6in& po$er of this !ourt and hi&hli&hted its evolution and develop"ent in
che&ara% v. Secretar% of Iustice,
Cnder the .;=: !onstitution, the po$er of this !ourt to pro"ul&ate rules concernin& pleadin&,
practice and procedure $as &ranted but it appeared to be co<e'istent $ith le&islative po$er for it $as
sub*ect to the po$er of !on&ress to repeal, alter or supple"ent. Thus, its Section .=, (rticle VIII
provides,
Sec..=. The Supre"e !ourt shall have the po$er to pro"ul&ate rules concernin& pleadin&, practice
and procedure in all courts, and the ad"ission to the practice of la$. Said rules shall be unifor" for
all courts of the sa"e &rade and shall not di"inish, increase, or "odif% substantive ri&hts. The
e'istin& la$s on pleadin&, practice, and procedure are hereb% repealed as statutes, and are
declared Rules of !ourt, sub*ect to the po$er of the Supre"e !ourt to alter and "odif% the sa"e.
The !on&ress shall have the po$er to repeal, alter or supple"ent the rules concernin& pleadin&,
practice and procedure, and the ad"ission to the practice of la$ in the Philippines.
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
8T9he .;3= !onstitution reiterated the po$er of this !ourt Bto pro"ul&ate rules concernin& pleadin&,
practice, and procedure in all courts, ' ' ' $hich, ho$ever, "a% be repealed, altered or
supple"ented b% the 1atasan& Pa"bansa ' ' '.B More co"pletel%, Section :420 8sic9 : of its (rticle M
provided,
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
Sec. :. The Supre"e !ourt shall have the follo$in& po$ers.
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
4:0 Pro"ul&ate rules concernin& pleadin&, practice, and procedure in all courts, the ad"ission to the
practice of la$, and the inte&ration of the 1ar, $hich, ho$ever, "a% be repealed, altered, or
supple"ented b% the 1atasan& Pa"bansa. Such rules shall provide a si"plified and ine'pensive
procedure for the speed% disposition of case, shall be unifor" for all courts of the sa"e &rade, and
shall not di"inish, increase, or "odif% substantive ri&hts.
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
The .;E3 !onstitution "olded an even stron&er and "ore independent *udiciar%. ("on& others, it
enhanced the rule "a6in& po$er of this !ourt. Its Section :4:0, (rticle VIII provides,
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
Section :. The Supre"e !ourt shall have the follo$in& po$ers.
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
4:0 Pro"ul&ate rules concernin& the protection and enforce"ent of constitutional ri&hts, pleadin&,
practice, and procedure in all courts, the ad"ission to the practice of la$, the Inte&rated 1ar, and
le&al assistance to the underprivile&ed. Such rules shall provide a si"plified and ine'pensive
procedure for the speed% disposition of cases, shall be unifor" for all courts of the sa"e &rade, and
shall not di"inish, increase, or "odif% substantive ri&hts. Rules of procedure of special courts and
-uasi<*udicial bodies shall re"ain effective unless disapproved b% the Supre"e !ourt.
The rule "a6in& po$er of this !ourt $as e'panded. This !ourt for the first ti"e $as &iven the po$er
to pro"ul&ate rules concernin& the protection and enforce"ent of constitutional ri&hts. The !ourt
$as also &ranted for the first ti"e the po$er to disapprove rules of procedure of special courts and
-uasi<*udicial bodies.
Bu) 6o4) *62or)a+)0y, )1e 19I7 Co+4)*)u)*o+ )oo< a.ay )1e 2o.er o, Co+7re44 )o re2ea0, a0)er,
or 4u220e6e+) ru0e4 5o+5er+*+7 20ea/*+7, 2ra5)*5e a+/ 2ro5e/ure. "+ ,*+e, )1e 2o.er )o
2ro6u07a)e ru0e4 o, 20ea/*+7, 2ra5)*5e a+/ 2ro5e/ure *4 +o 0o+7er 41are/ by )1*4 Cour) .*)1
Co+7re44, 6ore 4o .*)1 )1e E=e5u)*-e.
The separation of po$ers a"on& the three co<e-ual branches of our &overn"ent has erected an
i"pre&nable $all that 6eeps the po$er to pro"ul&ate rules of pleadin&, practice and procedure
$ithin the sole province of this !ourt. The other branches trespass upon this prero&ative if the%
enact la$s or issue orders that effectivel% repeal, alter or "odif% an% of the procedural rules
pro"ul&ated b% this !ourt. Vie$ed fro" this perspective, the clai" of a le&islative &rant of e'e"ption
fro" the pa%"ent of le&al fees under Section =; of R( E2;. necessaril% fails.(avvphi(
F*)1 )1e ,ore7o*+7 5a)e7or*5a0 2ro+ou+5e6e+) o, )1e Cour), *) *4 50ear )1a) NPC 5a+ +o 0o+7er
*+-o<e Re2ub0*5 $5) No. 3>95 ANPC C1ar)erD, a4 a6e+/e/ by Pre4*/e+)*a0 #e5ree No. 9>I, a4
*)4 ba4*4 ,or e=e62)*o+ ,ro6 )1e 2ay6e+) o, 0e7a0 ,ee4.
FEREFORE, it is hereb% C!$R"F"E# that the National Po$er !orporation is not e'e"pt fro" the
pa%"ent of le&al fees.
SO ORDRD.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
S!OND DIVISION
G.R. No4. 175277 O 1752I5 Se2)e6ber 11, 201>
UN"C$P"T$!, "NC., , Petitioners,
vs.
R$F$E! ?OSE CONS"NG, ?R.,. Respondents.
D ! I S I O N
PER!$S&BERN$BE, J.:
Be,ore )1e Cour) are 5o+4o0*/a)e/ 2e)*)*o+4 ,or re-*e. o+ 5er)*orar*
1
assailin& separate
issuances of the !ourt of (ppeals 4!(0 as follo$s,
F$CTS
Co+4*+7, ?r., a+ *+-e4)6e+) ba+<er, a+/ 1*4 6o)1er, !ecilia Dela !ru@ 4Dela !ru@0, ob)a*+e/ a+
P1I,000,000.00 0oa+ ,ro6 U+*5a2*)a0, ?ater on, the loan and "ort&a&e a&ree"ent $as "odified
into an Option to 1u% Real Propert%.
The said loan $as secured b% Pro6*44ory No)e4
10
a+/ a Rea0 E4)a)e Mor)7a7e
11
over a 52,55=
s-uare "eter<parcel of land located at I"us, !avite,
.2
Prior to these transactions, P0u4 Bu*0/er4, "+5. APB"D, a real estate co"pan%, $as alread%
interested to develop the sub*ect propert% into a residential subdivision.
.=

ventuall%, Cnicapital, throu&h CRI, purchased one<half of the sub*ect propert% for a consideration
ofP2.,22.,://.// 4a&ainst $hich Dela !ru@)s outstandin& loan obli&ations $ere first offset0, $hile
P1I bou&ht the re"ainin& half for the price of P2.,/53,///.//.
.>
I
Pro"pted b% Ten& and Lu)s assertions, P1I conducted further investi&ations on the sub*ect propert%
$hich later revealed that Dela !ru@Hs title $as actuall% of dubious ori&in. 1ased on this findin&, P1I
and Cnicapital sent separate de"and letters
22
to Dela !ru@ and !onsin&, Ir., see6in& the return of
the purchase price the% had paid for the sub*ect propert%.
7ro" the above<stated incidents ste""ed the present controversies as detailed hereunder.
The Proceedin&s (ntecedent to A.R. Nos. .3:233 N .3:2E:
!onsin&, Ir. filed a co"plaint, deno"inated as a Co620e= $5)*o+ ,or #e50ara)ory Re0*e,
2>
and later
a"ended to !o"ple' (ction for In*unctive Relief
25
4!onsin&, Ir.)s co"plaint0 before the RT!<Pasi&
!it% a&ainst Cnicapital, CRI, P1I, Martire@, P1I Aeneral Mana&er Mariano Martine@ 4Martine@0, Dela
!ru@ and Does.
In his co"plaint, Co+4*+7, ?r. 50a*6e/ )1a) )1e *+5e44a+) /e6a+/4@re5o-ery e,,or)4 6a/e u2o+
1*6 by U+*5a2*)a0 a+/ PB" )o re)ur+ )o )1e6 )1e 2ur51a4e 2r*5e )1ey 1a/ 2a*/ ,or )1e 4ub9e5)
2ro2er)y 5o+4)*)u)e/ 1ara446e+) a+/ o22re44*o+ .1*51 4e-ere0y a,,e5)e/ 1*4 2er4o+a0 a+/
2ro,e44*o+a0 0*,e.
2:

coerced to co""it a violation of 1atas Pa"bansa 1l&. 22
2>

Cnicapital and CRI re-uired hi" to si&n blan6 deeds of sale and transfers $ithout cancellin& the old
ones in violation of the la$s on land re&istration and real estate develop"ent.
2E

Cnicapital and P1I)s representatives $ereB spea6in& of hi" in a "anner that $as inappropriate and
libelous,B
2;
and that so"e Iohn Does Bdeliberatel% en&a&ed in a fraudulent sche"e to co"pro"ise
!onsin&, Ir.)s honor, inte&rit% and fortune ' ' ' consistin& of falsif%in& or causin& to be falsified, or
atte"ptin& to present as falsified certain transfers of ?and Titles and Deeds for profit,B
=/
classif%in&
the fore&oin& as ultra vires acts $hich should $arrant sanctions under the corporation la$, Revised
Securities (ct and related la$s.
=.

For )1e*r 2ar), U+*5a2*)a0, UR", a+/ Mar)*reJ AU+*5a2*)a0, e) a0.D ,*0e/ 4e2ara)e Mo)*o+4 )o
#*46*44
>>
Co+4*+7, ?r.;4 5o620a*+) AU+*5a2*)a0, e) a0.;4 6o)*o+ )o /*46*44D o+ )1e 7rou+/ o,
,a*0ure )o 4)a)e a 5au4e o, a5)*o+,
B"MPORT$NT( Moreo-er, U+*5a2*)a0, e) a0. 2o4*)e/ )1a) )1e RTC&Pa4*7C*)y /*/ +o) a5:u*re
9ur*4/*5)*o+ o-er )1e 5a4e 7*-e+ )1a) Co+4*+7, ?r. ,a*0e/ )o 2ay )1e 2ro2er a6ou+) o, /o5<e)
,ee4. C In the sa"e vein, the% "aintained that the RT!<Pasi& !it% had no *urisdiction over their
supposed violations of the !orporation !ode and Revised Securities (ct, $hich, discountin& its
"erits, should have been supposedl% lod&ed $ith the Securities and 'chan&e !o""ission. 7inall%,
the% pointed out that !onsin&, Ir.)s co"plaint suffers fro" a defective verification and, thus,
dis"issible.
=5
Si"ilar to Cnicapital et al.)s course of action, P1I and its Aeneral Mana&er, Martine@ 4Cnicapital and
P1I, et al.0, 4ou71) )1e /*46*44a0 o, Co+4*+7, ?r.;4 5o620a*+) o+ )1e 7rou+/ )1a) *) /oe4 +o)
4)a)e a 5au4e o, a5)*o+. The% also denied havin& sin&led out !onsin&, Ir. because their collection
efforts $ere directed at both !onsin&, Ir. and Dela !ru@, $hich should be dee"ed as valid and,
therefore, should not be restrained.
=:
O+ Se2)e6ber 14, 1999, )1e RTC&Pa4*7 C*)y *44ue/ a Re4o0u)*o+
>3
/e+y*+7 )1e abo-e
6e+)*o+e/ 6o)*o+4 )o /*46*44, 1o0/*+7 )1a) Co+4*+7, ?r.;4 5o620a*+) 4u,,*5*e+)0y 4)a)e/ a
5au4e o, a5)*o+ ,or )or) a+/ /a6a7e4 2ur4ua+) )o $r)*50e 19 o, )1e C*-*0 Co/e.
$77r*e-e/, )1ey e0e-a)e/ )1e /e+*a0 o, )1e*r 6o)*o+4 )o /*46*44 be,ore )1e C$ -*a a 2e)*)*o+
,or 5er)*orar* a+/ 2ro1*b*)*o+,
>9
/o5<e)e/ a4 C$&G.R. SP No4. 34019 a+/ 34451.
C$ re+/ere/ a ?o*+) #e5*4*o+
40
1o0/*+7 )1a) NO GR$%E $BUSE OF #"SCRET"ON .a4
5o66*))e/ by )1e RTC&Pa4*7 C*)y *+ re,u4*+7 )o /*46*44 Co+4*+7, ?r.G4 5o620a*+).()wphi
1$) )1e ou)4e), *) ru0e/ )1a) .1*0e )1e 2ay6e+) o, )1e 2re45r*be/ /o5<e) ,ee *4 a 9ur*4/*5)*o+a0
re:u*re6e+), *)4 +o+&2ay6e+) .*00 +o) au)o6a)*5a00y 5au4e )1e /*46*44a0 o, )1e 5a4e. In this
re&ard, it considered that should there be an% deficienc% in the pa%"ent of such fees, the sa"e shall
constitute a lien on the *ud&"ent a$ard.
5.
It also refused to dis"iss the co"plaint for lac6 of proper
verification upon a findin& that the cop% of the a"ended co"plaint sub"itted to the RT!<Pasi& !it%
$as properl% notari@ed.
52
Moreover, it upheld the order of the RT!<Pasi& !it% for Cnicapital and P1I,
et al. to sub"it their co""ent due to the alle&ed e'istence of a si"ilar case filed before the RT!<
Ma6ati !it%.
5=
Dissatisfied, o+0y U+*5a2*)a0, e) a0. 4ou71) re5o+4*/era)*o+ therefro" but the sa"e $as denied b%
the !( in a Resolution
5>
dated October 2:,2//>. e+5e, )1e 2re4e+) 2e)*)*o+4 ,or re-*e. o+
5er)*orar* *+ G.R. No4.175277 a+/ 1752I5.
The Proceedin&s (ntecedent to A.R. No. .;2/3=
On the other hand, on (u&ust 5, .;;;, Cnicapital filed a co"plaint
53
for su" of "one% $ith da"a&es
a&ainst !onsin&, Ir. and Dela !ru@ before the RT!<Ma6ati !it%, doc6eted as !ivil !ase No. ;;<.5.E,
see6in& to recover 4a0 the a"ount of P52,.;:,=;3..>, representin& the value of their indebtedness
based on the Pro"issor% Notes 4sub*ect pro"issor% notes0 plus interests+ 4b0 P:,///,///.// as
e'e"plar% da"a&es+ 4c0 attorne%Hs fees+ and 4d0 costs of suit.
5E
$NOTER C$SE
PB" a04o ,*0e/ a 5o620a*+) ,or /a6a7e4 a+/ a))a516e+) a7a*+4) Co+4*+7, ?r. a+/ #e0a CruJ
be,ore )1e RTC o, Ma+*0a, 1ranch .2, doc6eted as !ivil !ase No. ;;<;:=E., also predicated on the
sa"e set of facts as above narrated.
5;
In its co"plaint, P1I pra%ed that it be allo$ed to recover the
follo$in&, 4a0 P.=,=>;,>5..3;, representin& the total a"ount of install"ent pa%"ents "ade as actual
da"a&es plus interests+ 4b0 P2//,///.// as e'e"plar% da"a&es+ 4c0 P2//,///.// as "oral
da"a&es+ 4d0 attorne%Hs fees+ and 4e0 costs of suit.
:/
!ivil !ase No. ;;<;:=E. $as subse-uentl%
consolidated $ith S!( No. .3:; pendin& before the RT!<Pasi& !it%.
:.
7or his part, !onsin&, Ir. filed a Motion to Dis"iss !ivil !ase No. ;;<.5.E $hich $as, ho$ever,
denied b% the RT!<Ma6ati !it% in an Order
:2
dated Nove"ber .>, .;;;. Thereafter, he filed a Motion
for !onsolidation
:=
4"otion for consolidation0 of !ivil !ase No. ;;<.5.E $ith his o$n initiated S!( No.
.3:; pendin& before the RT!<Pasi& !it%.
RT!<Ma6ati !it% dis"issed !onsin&, Ir.)s "otion for consolidation and, in so doin&, ruled that the
cases sou&ht to be consolidated had no identit% of ri&hts or causes of action and the reliefs sou&ht
for b% !onsin&, Ir. fro" the RT!<Pasi& !it% $ill not bar Cnicapital fro" pursuin& its "one% clai"s
a&ainst hi".
!( rendered a Decision
:>
sustainin& the Orders of the RT!<Ma6ati !it% $hich denied !onsin&, Ir.)s
"otion for consolidation. It held that consolidation is a "atter of sound discretion on the part of the
trial court $hich could be &leaned fro" the use of the $ord B"a%B in Section ., Rule=E of the Rules
of !ourt. .
The Proceedin&s 1efore the !ourt
(fter the filin& of the fore&oin& cases, the parties $ere re-uired to file their respective co""ents and
replies. 7urther, considerin& that A.R. No..;2/3= 4Ma6ati case0 involves the sa"e parties and set of
facts $ith those in A.R. Nos. .3:233 N .3:2E: 4Pasi& case0, these cases $ere ordered
consolidated per the !ourtHs Resolution
:;
dated Nove"ber .3, 2/./. On March ;, 2/.., the !ourt
resolved to &ive due course to the instant petitions and re-uired the parties to sub"it their respective
"e"oranda.
>/
"SSUES(
F1e)1er or +o) )1e C$ erre/ *+ u21o0/*+7 )1e RTC&Pa4*7 C*)y;4 /e+*a0 o, U+*5a2*)a0, e) a0.;4
6o)*o+ )o /*46*44E NO
F1e)1er or +o) )1e C$ erre/ *+ u21o0/*+7 )1e RTC&Ma<a)* C*)y;4 /e+*a0 o, Co+4*+7, ?r.;4
6o)*o+ ,or 5o+4o0*/a)*o+E NO, )1e C$ ru0*+7 *4 2ro2er.
SC RU!"NG(
(. Propriet% of the denial of
Cnicapital, et al.)s "otion to
dis"iss and ancillar% issues.
7urther, so as to obviate an% confusion on the "atter, the !ourt e-uall% finds that the causes of
action in S!( No. .3:; $ere NOT M"S?O"NE# even if !onsin&, Ir. averred that Cnicapital and P1I,
et al. violated certain provisions of the !orporation ?a$ and the Revised Securities (ct.
E/
The rule is that a part%)s failure to observe the follo$in& conditions under Section :, Rule 2 of the
Rules results in a "is*oinder of causes of action,
E.
S!. :. Ioinder of causes of action . < ( part% "a% in one pleadin& assert, in the alternative or
other$ise, as "an% causes of action as he "a% have a&ainst an opposin& part%, sub*ect to the
follo$in& conditions,
4a0 The part% *oinin& the causes of action shall co"pl% $ith the rules on *oinder of parties+
4b0 The *oinder shall not include special civil actions &overned b% special rules+
4c0 #here the causes of action are bet$een the sa"e parties but pertain to different venues
or *urisdictions, the *oinder "a% be allo$ed in the Re&ional Trial !ourt provided one of the
causes of action falls $ithin the *urisdiction of said court and the venue lies therein+ and
4d0 #here the clai"s in all the causes of action are principall% for recover% of "one% the
a&&re&ate a"ount clai"ed shall be the test of *urisdiction. 4"phasis supplied0
( careful perusal of his co"plaint discloses that !onsin&, Ir. did not see6 to hold Cnicapital and P1I,
et al. liable for an% specific violation of the !orporation !ode or the Revised Securities (ct. Ra)1er,
1e 6ere0y 4ou71) /a6a7e4 ,or U+*5a2*)a0 a+/ PB", e) a0.;4 a00e7e/ a5)4 o, 6a<*+7 1*6 4*7+
+u6erou4 /o5u6e+)4 a+/ )1e*r u4e o, )1e 4a6e a7a*+4) 1*6. "+ )1*4 re42e5), Co+4*+7, ?r.
a5)ua00y a/-a+5e4 a+ *+9u+5)*o+ a+/ /a6a7e4 5a4e
I2
.1*51 2ro2er0y ,a004 u+/er )1e
9ur*4/*5)*o+ o, )1e RTC&Pa4*7 C*)y.
E=
Therefore, there $as no violation of Section :, Rule 2 of the
Rules, particularl%, para&raph 4c0 thereof. 1esides, even on the assu"ption that there $as a
"is*oinder of causes of action, still, such defect should not result in the dis"issal of !onsin&, Ir.)s
co"plaint. Section >, Rule 2 of the Rules e'plicitl% states that a B"is*oinder of causes of action is not
a &round for dis"issal of an actionB and that Ba "is*oined cause of action "a%, on "otion of a part%
or on the initiative of the court, be severed and proceeded $ith separatel%.B
B%ERY "MPORT$NT( Ne*)1er 41ou0/ Co+4*+7, ?r.;4 ,a*0ure )o 2ay )1e re:u*re/ /o5<e) ,ee4 0ea/
)o )1e /*46*44a0 o, 1*4 5o620a*+).1wphi1
") 1a4 0o+7 bee+ 4e))0e/ )1a) .1*0e )1e 5our) a5:u*re4 9ur*4/*5)*o+ o-er a+y 5a4e o+0y u2o+ )1e
2ay6e+) o, )1e 2re45r*be/ /o5<e) ,ee4, *)4 +o+&2ay6e+) a) )1e )*6e o, )1e ,*0*+7 o, )1e
5o620a*+) /oe4 +o) au)o6a)*5a00y 5au4e )1e /*46*44a0 o, )1e 5o620a*+) 2ro-*/e/ )1a) )1e ,ee4
are 2a*/ .*)1*+ a rea4o+ab0e 2er*o/.
I4

Co+4e:ue+)0y, U+*5a2*)a0, e) a0.;4 *+4*4)e+5e )1a) )1e 4)r*+7e+) ru0e o+ +o+&2ay6e+) o, /o5<e)
,ee4 e+u+5*a)e/ *+ )1e 5a4e o, Ma+51e4)er #e-e0o26e+) Cor2ora)*o+ -. C$
I5
41ou0/ be
a220*e/ *+ )1*4 5a4e C$NNOT be 4u4)a*+e/ *+ )1e ab4e+5e o, 2roo, )1a) Co+4*+7, ?r. *+)e+/e/
)o /e,rau/ )1e 7o-er+6e+) by 1*4 ,a*0ure )o 2ay )1e 5orre5) a6ou+) o, ,*0*+7 ,ee4. $4
2ro+ou+5e/ *+ )1e 5a4e o, e*r4 o, Ber)u0/o *+o7 -. o+. Me0*5or(
I3
ANOTE TO SE!F( Goo/ ,a*)1 *+ )1e 2ay6e+) o, *+4u,,*5*e+) ,*0*+7 or /o5<e) ,ee4 4a-e4 )1e /ay
ye) a7a*+. T1*4 *4 )1e e=5e2)*o+ )o )1e Ma+51e4)er Ru0e.D
P0a*+0y, .1*0e )1e 2ay6e+) o, )1e 2re45r*be/ /o5<e) ,ee *4 a 9ur*4/*5)*o+a0 re:u*re6e+), e-e+
*)4 +o+&2ay6e+) a) )1e )*6e o, ,*0*+7 /oe4 +o) au)o6a)*5a00y 5au4e )1e /*46*44a0 o, )1e 5a4e,
a4 0o+7 a4 )1e ,ee *4 2a*/ .*)1*+ )1e a220*5ab0e 2re45r*2)*-e or re70e6e+)ary 2er*o/, 6ore 4o
.1e+ )1e 2ar)y *+-o0-e/ /e6o+4)ra)e4 a .*00*+7+e44 )o ab*/e by )1e ru0e4 2re45r*b*+7 4u51
2ay6e+).
Thus, $hen insufficient filin& fees $ere initiall% paid b% the plaintiffs and there $as no intention to
defraud the &overn"ent, the Manchester rule does not appl%.
E3
4"phasis and italics in the ori&inal0
Indeed, $hile the !ourt ac6no$led&es Cnicapital, et al.Hs apprehension that !onsin&, Ir.Hs B"eteredB
clai" for da"a&es to the tune of around P2,///,///.// per "onth
EE
"a% balloon to a rather hu&e
a"ount b% the ti"e that this case is finall% disposed of, still, an% a"ount that "a% b% then fall due
shall be sub*ect to assess"ent and an% additional fees deter"ined shall constitute as a lien a&ainst
the *ud&"ent as e'plicitl% provided under Section 2,
E;
Rule .5. of the Rules.
In fine, the !ourt finds no reversible error on the part of the !( in sustainin& the RT!<Pasi& !it%)s
denial of Cnicapital et al.)s "otion to dis"iss. (s such, the petitions in A.R. Nos. .3:233 and .3:2E:
"ust be denied.
1. Propriet% of the denial of
!onsin&, Ir.)s "otion for
consolidation.
The !()s rulin& is proper.
B"MPORT$NT( "+ )1e 2re4e+) 5a4e, )1e Cour) ob4er-e4 )1a) )1e 4ub9e5) 5a4e4, *.e., SC$ No.
1759 a+/ C*-*0 Ca4e No. 99&141I, a0)1ou71 *+-o0-*+7 )1e 4a6e 2ar)*e4 a+/ 2ro5ee/*+7 ,ro6 a
4*6*0ar ,a5)ua0 6*0*eu, 41ou0/ re6a*+ u+5o+4o0*/a)e/ 4*+5e )1ey 2ro5ee/ ,ro6 /*,,ere+)
4our5e4 o, ob0*7a)*o+4 a+/, 1e+5e, .ou0/ +o) y*e0/ 5o+,0*5)*+7 /*42o4*)*o+4.C S!( No. .3:; is
an in*unction and da"a&es case based on the !ivil !ode provisions on abuse of ri&ht and
defa"ation, $hile !ivil !ase No. ;;<.5.E is a collection and da"a&es suit based on actionable
docu"ents, i.e., the sub*ect pro"issor% notes. In particular, S!( No. .3:; deals $ith $hether or not
Cnicapital and 1PI, et al, abused the "anner in $hich the% de"anded pa%"ent fro" !onsin&, Ir.,
$hile !ivil !ase No. ;;<.5.E deals $ith $hether or not Cnicapital "a% de"and pa%"ent fro"
!onsin&, Ir. based on the sub*ect pro"issor% notes. !learl%, a resolution in one case $ould have no
practical effect as the core issues and reliefs sou&ht in each case are separate and distinct fro" the
other.
?i6e$ise, as the !( correctl% pointed out, the RT!<Ma6ati !it% could not have been failured in
retainin& !ivil !ase No. ;;<.5.E in its doc6ets since pre<trial procedures have alread% been
underta6en therein and, thus, its consolidation $ith S!( No. .3:; pendin& before the RT!<Pasi&
!it% $ould "erel% result in co"plications on the part of the latter court or s-uander the resources or
re"edies alread% utili@ed in !ivil !ase No. ;;<.5.E.
;=
In this li&ht, aside fro" the perceived
i"probabilit% of havin& conflictin& decisions, the consolidation of S!( No. .3:; and !ivil !ase No.
;;<.5.E $ould, contrar% to its ob*ective, onl% dela% the proceedin&s and entail unnecessar% costs.
(ll told, the !ourt finds the consolidation of S!( No. .3:; and !ivil !ase No. ;;<.5.E to be
i"proper, i"pellin& the affir"ance of the !()s rulin&. !onse-uentl%, the petition in A.R. No. .;2/3=
"ust also be denied.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 151242 ?u+e 15, 2005
PROTON P"!"P"N$S CORPOR$T"ON Petitioners,
vs.
B$NHUE N$T"ON$!E #E P$R"S,
.
Respondent.
D ! I S I O N
C$RP"O MOR$!ES, J.:
Pro)o+ P*0*2*+a4 Cor2ora)*o+ APro)o+D availed of the 5re/*) ,a5*0*)*e4 o, herein respondent,
Ba+:ue Na)*o+a0e /e Par*4 ABNPD.
To &uarantee the pa%"ent of its obli&ation, its co<petitioners (uto"otive !orporation Philippines
4(uto"otive0, (sea One !orporation 4(sea0 and (utocorp Aroup 4(utocorpD e=e5u)e/ a 5or2ora)e
7uara+)ee
2
to the e'tent of CSO2,///,///.//. 1NP and Proton subse-uentl% e+)ere/ *+)o )1ree
)ru4) re5e*2) a7ree6e+)4.
Cnder the ter"s of the trust receipt a&ree"ents, Pro)o+ .ou0/ re5e*-e *62or)e/ 2a44e+7er
6o)or -e1*50e4 and 1o0/ )1e6 "N TRUST ,or BNP. Proton $ould be free to sell the vehicles
sub*ect to the condition that it $ould /e0*-er )1e 2ro5ee/4 o, )1e 4a0e )o BNP, )o be a220*e/ )o *)4
ob0*7a)*o+4 )o *). In case the vehicles are not sold, Proton $ould return the" to 1NP, to&ether $ith
all the acco"pan%in& docu"ents of title.
$00e7e/0y, Pro)o+ ,a*0e/ )o /e0*-er )1e 2ro5ee/4 o, )1e 4a0e a+/ re)ur+ )1e u+4o0/ 6o)or
-e1*50e4.
Pursuant to the corporate &uarantee, 1NP de"anded fro" (uto"otive, (sea and (utocorp the
pa%"ent of the a"ount of CSO.,:55,;E5.5/
>
representin& ProtonHs total outstandin& obli&ations.
T1e4e 7uara+)or4 re,u4e/ )o 2ay, 1o.e-er.
Hence, 1NP filed on Septe"ber 3, .;;E before the Ma6ati Re&ional Trial !ourt 4RT!0 a co"plaint
a&ainst petitioners
T1e Ma<a)* RTC C0er< o, Cour) a44e44e/ )1e /o5<e) ,ee4 .1*51 BNP 2a*/
a) P>52,113.>0
7
$hich $as co"puted as follo$s,
E
7irst !ause of (ction P O E55,>35./3
Second !ause of (ction P .3.,.2/.:=
Third !ause of (ction P :2;,.E;.E/
O.,:55,;E5.5/
:Q as (ttorne%Hs 7ees P O 33,25;.22
TOT(? RRRR.. O.,>22,2==.>2
!onversion rate to peso ' 5=S
TOT(? RRRR.. P>;,3:>,///.//
4roundoff0
Computation based on Rule 141:
!OCRT ID7
P >;,3:>,///.// P >;.>/>.///.//
< .:/,///.// ' .//=
>;,>/>,///.// 2/E,E.E.//
' .//2 T 5:/.//
.=;,2.2.// P 2/;,2>E.//
T .:/.//
P .=;,=>2.//
?A(? , P.=;,=>2.//
T 2/;,2>E.//
P=5E,>=/.// ' .Q U P=,5E>.=/
P .=;,=>2.//
T 2/;,2>E.//
=,5E>.//
P =:2,..>.=/ < Total fees paid b% the plaintiff
Pro)o+ ,*0e/ a Mo)*o+ )o #*46*44
9
o+ )1e 7rou+/ )1a) BNP ,a*0e/ )o 2ay )1e 5orre5) /o5<e) ,ee4
to thus prevent the trial court fro" ac-uirin& *urisdiction over the case.
./
(s additional &round,
petitioners raised pre"aturit% of the co"plaint, 1NP not havin& priorl% sent an% de"and letter.
..
Ma<a)* RTC /e+*e/ )1e Mo)*o+ )o #*46*44, vi@,
Resolvin& the first &round relied upon b% the defendant, this court believes and so hold that
the doc6et fees $ere properl% paid. It is the Office of the !ler6 of !ourt of this station that co"putes
the correct doc6et fees, and it is their dut% to assess the doc6et fees correctl%, $hich the% did.(avvphi(*w+
ven &rantin& ar&uendo that the doc6et fees $ere not properl% paid, the court cannot *ust dis"iss
the case. The !ourt has not %et ordered 4and it $ill not in this case0 to pa% the correct doc6et fees,
thus the Motion to dis"iss is pre"ature, aside fro" bein& $ithout an% le&al basis.
(s held in the case of National Steel !orporation vs. !(, A.R. No. .2=2.:, 7ebruar% 2, .;;;, the
Supre"e !ourt said,
' ' '
(lthou&h the pa%"ent of the proper doc6et fees is a *urisdictional re-uire"ent, the trial court "a%
allo$ the plaintiff in an action to pa% the sa"e $ithin a reasonable ti"e $ithin the e'piration of
applicable prescription or re&le"entar% period. If the plaintiff fails to co"pl% $ith this re-uire"ent,
the defendant should ti"el% raise the issue of *urisdiction or else he $ould be considered in
estoppel. In the latter case, the balance bet$een appropriate doc6et fees and the a"ount actuall%
paid b% the plaintiff $ill be considered a lien or 4sic0 an% a$ard he "a% obtain in his favor.
(s to the second &round relied upon b% the defendants, in that a revie$ of all anne'es to the
co"plaint of the plaintiff reveals that there is not a sin&le for"al de"and letter for defendants to fulfill
the ter"s and conditions of the three 4=0 trust a&ree"ents.
In this re&ard, the court cannot sustain the sub"ission of defendant. (s correctl% pointed out b% the
plaintiff,failure to "a6e a for"al de"and for the debtor to pa% the plaintiff is not a"on& the le&al
&rounds for the dis"issal of the case. (n%$a%, in the appreciation of the court, this is si"pl%
evidentiar%.
' ' '
Pro)o+ ,*0e/ a 6o)*o+ ,or re5o+4*/era)*o+
14
of the denial of their Motion to Dis"iss. #EN"E#.
Pe)*)*o+er4 )1ereu2o+ brou71) )1e 5a4e o+ 5er)*orar* a+/ 6a+/a6u4
13
)o )1e Cour) o, $22ea04,
#EN"E#
R Section 34a0 of Rule .5. of the Rules of !ourt e'cludes interest accruin& fro" the principal
a"ount bein& clai"ed in the pleadin& in the co"putation of the prescribed filin& fees. The co"plaint
$as sub"itted for the co"putation of the filin& fee to the Office of the !ler6 of !ourt of the Re&ional
Trial !ourt of Ma6ati !it% $hich "ade an assess"ent that respondent paid accordin&l%. #hat the
Office of the !ler6 of !ourt did and the rulin& of the respondent Iud&e find support in the decisions
of the Supre"e !ourt in N& Soon vs. (lda% and Taca% vs. RT! of Ta&u", Davao del Norte. In the
latter case, the Supre"e !ourt e'plicitl% ruled that B$here the action is purel% for recover% of "one%
or da"a&es, the doc6et fees are assessed on the basis of the a&&re&ate a"ount clai"ed, e'clusive
onl% of interests and costs.B
On the issue of the correct dollar<peso rate of e'chan&e, the Office of the !ler6 of !ourt of the RT!
of Ma6ati pe&&ed it at P 5=.2. to CSO.. In the absence of an% office &uide of the rate of e'chan&e
$hich said court functionar% $as dut% bound to follo$, the rate he applied is presu"ptivel% correct.
Pro)o+ .e+) u2 )o )1e SC -*a 2e)*)*o+ ,or re-*e. o+ 5er)*orar* AR45D.
"SSUES(
1D #*/ BNP 2ay )1e 5orre5) a6ou+) o, /o5<e) ,ee4E
No, *) .a4 *+4u,,*5*e+). T1e 2re4u62)*o+ o, re7u0ar*)y *+ ,a-or o, )1e a5)*o+4 o, )1e
50er< o, 5our) *4 /*42u)ab0e. "+ )1*4 5a4e, Pro)o+ .a4 ab0e )o 2ro-e )1a) a) )1e )*6e o, ,*0*+7,
)1e /o00ar )o 2e4o e=51a+7e ra)e .a4 4>.21 2e4o4 )o a /o00ar a+/ +o) 4>.00 2e4o4 o+0y.
2D #*/ )1e Cour) a5:u*re 9ur*4/*5)*o+ o-er )1e 5a4e /e42*)e P1E
Ye4. "+ )1e 2re4e+) 5a4e, a MORE !"BER$! "NTERPRET$T"ON o, )1e ru0e4 *4 5a00e/ ,or
5o+4*/er*+7 )1a), u+0*<e anchester, 2r*-a)e re42o+/e+) /e6o+4)ra)e/ 1*4 .*00*+7+e44 )o
ab*/e by )1e ru0e4 by 2ay*+7 )1e a//*)*o+a0 /o5<e) ,ee4 a4 re:u*re/. Plainl%, $hile the
pa%"ent of the prescribed doc6et fee is a *urisdictional re-uire"ent, even its non<pa%"ent at the
ti"e of filin& does not auto"aticall% cause the dis"issal of the case, as lon& as the fee is paid
$ithin the applicable prescriptive or re&le"entar% period, "ore so $hen the part% involved
de"onstrates a $illin&ness to abide b% the rules prescribin& such pa%"ent. T1u4, .1e+
*+4u,,*5*e+) ,*0*+7 ,ee4 .ere *+*)*a00y 2a*/ by )1e 20a*+)*,,4 a+/ )1ere .a4 +o *+)e+)*o+ )o
/e,rau/ )1e 7o-er+6e+), )1e anchester ru0e /oe4 +o) a220y
Nevertheless, petitioners contend that the doc6et fee that $as paid is still insufficient
considerin& the total a"ount of the clai". T1*4 *4 a 6a))er .1*51 )1e 50er< o, 5our) o, )1e
0o.er 5our) a+/@or 1*4 /u0y au)1or*Je/ /o5<e) 50er< or 50er< *+ 51ar7e 41ou0/ /e)er6*+e
a+/, )1erea,)er, *, a+y a6ou+) *4 ,ou+/ /ue, 1e 6u4) re:u*re )1e 2r*-a)e re42o+/e+) )o 2ay
)1e 4a6e.
B%ERY "MPORT$NT( Re42o+/e+) /*/ +o), 1o.e-er, 2ay )1e ,*0*+7 ,ee 5orre42o+/*+7 )o
*)4 50a*6 ,or *+)ere4) ,ro6 $u7u4) 13, 199I u+)*0 )1e ,*0*+7 o, )1e 5o620a*+) o+ Se2)e6ber 7,
199I. $4 2r*or0y /*45u44e/, )1*4 *4 re:u*re/ u+/er Ru0e 141, a4 a6e+/e/ by $/6*+*4)ra)*-e
C*r5u0ar No. 11&94, .1*51 .a4 )1e ru0e a220*5ab0e a) )1e )*6e. T1u4, a4 )1e 5o620a*+)
5urre+)0y 4)a+/4, re42o+/e+) 5a++o) 50a*6 )1e *+)ere4) ,ro6 $u7u4) 13, 199I u+)*0
Se2)e6ber 7, 199I, u+0e44 re42o+/e+) *4 a00o.e/ by 6o)*o+ )o a6e+/ *)4 5o620a*+) .*)1*+
a rea4o+ab0e )*6e a+/ 42e5*,y )1e 2re5*4e a6ou+) o, *+)ere4) 2e)*)*o+er4 o.e ,ro6 $u7u4)
13, 199I )o Se2)e6ber 7, 199I
42
a+/ 2ay )1e 5orre42o+/*+7 /o5<e) ,ee )1ere,or.C
F*)1 re42e5) )o )1e *+)ere4) a55ru*+7 a,)er )1e ,*0*+7 o, )1e 5o620a*+), )1e 4a6e 5a+
o+0y be /e)er6*+e/ a,)er a ,*+a0 9u/76e+) 1a4 bee+ 1a+/e/ /o.+. Re42o+/e+) 5a++o)
)1u4 be 6a/e )o 2ay )1e 5orre42o+/*+7 /o5<e) ,ee )1ere,or. Pursuant, ho$ever, to Section
2, Rule .5., as a"ended b% (d"inistrative !ircular No. ..<;5, respondent should be "ade to
pa% additional fees $hich shall constitute a lien in the event the trial court ad*ud&es that it is
entitled to interest accruin& after the filin& of the co"plaint.
Sec. 2. ,ees as lien - #here the court in its final *ud&"ent a$ards a clai" not alle&ed, or a
relief different or "ore than that clai"ed in the pleadin&, the part% concerned shall pa% the
additional fees $hich shall constitute a lien on the *ud&"ent in satisfaction of said lien. The cler6
of court shall assess and collect the correspondin& fees.
7urther"ore, petitioners sub"it that pursuant to Supre"e !ourt !ircular No. 3,
2:
the co"plaint
should have been dis"issed for failure to specif% the a"ount of interest in the pra%er.
!ircular No. 3 reads,
TO, ICDAS (ND !?RKS O7 !OCRT O7 TH !OCRT O7 T(M (PP(?S, RAION(? TRI(?
!OCRTS, MTROPO?IT(N TRI(? !OCRTS IN !ITIS, MCNI!IP(? TRI(? !OCRTS, MCNI!IP(?
!IR!CIT TRI(? !OCRTS, SH(RIH( DISTRI!T !OCRTS+(ND TH INTAR(TD 1(R O7 TH
PHI?IPPINS
SC1I!T, $!! COMP!$"NTS MUST SPEC"FY $MOUNT OF #$M$GES SOCAHT NOT ON?L IN
TH 1ODL O7 TH P?(DINA, BUT $!SO "N TE PR$YER "N OR#ER TO BE $CCEPTE# $N#
$#M"TTE# FOR F"!"NG. TH (MOCNT O7 D(M(AS SO SP!I7ID IN TH !OMP?(INT
SH(?? 1 TH 1(SIS 7OR (SSSSINA TH (MOCNT O7 TH 7I?INA 7S.
The cler6 of court should thus have assessed the filin& fee b% ta6in& into consideration Bthe total su"
clai"ed,inclusive of interest, da"a&es of $hatever 6ind, attorne%Hs fees, liti&ation e'penses, and
costs, or the stated value of the propert% in liti&ation.B RespondentHs and the !ourt of (ppealsH
reliance then on "acay $as not in order.
Neither $as, for the sa"e reason, the !ourt of (ppealsH reliance on the .;E; case of .g %oon v
&lday,
=/
$here this !ourt held,
RT1e ,a*0ure )o 4)a)e )1e ra)e o, *+)ere4) /e6a+/e/ .a4 +o) ,a)a0 not onl% because it is the
!ourts $hich ulti"atel% fi' the sa"e, but also be5au4e Ru0e 141, Se5)*o+ 5AaD o, )1e Ru0e4 o,
Cour), *)e6*J*+7 )1e ,*0*+7 ,ee4, 42ea<4 o, 8)1e 4u6 50a*6e/, e=50u4*-e o, *+)ere4).B T1*4
50ear0y *620*e4 )1a) )1e 42e5*,*5a)*o+ o, )1e *+)ere4) ra)e *4 +o) )1a) *+/*42e+4ab0e.
7actuall%, therefore, not ever%thin& $as left to B&uess$or6B as respondent Iud&e has opined. The
su"s clai"ed $ere ascertainable, sufficient enou&h to allo$ a co"putation pursuant to Rule .5.,
section :4a0.
B%ERY "MPORT$NT( 7urther"ore, contrar% to the position ta6en b% respondent Iud&e, )1e
a6ou+)4 50a*6e/ +ee/ +o) be *+*)*a00y 4)a)e/ .*)1 6a)1e6a)*5a0 2re5*4*o+. T1e 4a6e Ru0e 141,
4e5)*o+ 5AaD A>r/ 2ara7ra21D, a00o.4 a+ a22ra*4a0 86ore or 0e44 .B
=.
Thus,
8"+ 5a4e )1e -a0ue o, )1e 2ro2er)y or e4)a)e or )1e 4u6 50a*6e/ *4 0e44 or 6ore *+ a55or/a+5e
.*)1 )1e a22ra*4a0 o, )1e 5our), )1e /*,,ere+5e o, ,ee 41a00 be re,u+/e/ or 2a*/ a4 )1e 5a4e 6ay
be.B
In other $ords, a final deter"ination is still to be "ade b% the !ourt, and the fees ulti"atel% found to
be pa%able $ill either be additionall% paid b% the part% concerned or refunded to hi", as the case
"a% be. T1e abo-e 2ro-*4*o+ 50ear0y a00o.4 a+ *+*)*a0 2ay6e+) o, )1e ,*0*+7 ,ee4 5orre42o+/*+7
)o )1e e4)*6a)e/ a6ou+) o, )1e 50a*6 4ub9e5) )o a/9u4)6e+) a4 )o .1a) 0a)er 6ay be 2ro-e/.C
Re42e5)*+7 )1e Cour) o, $22ea04G 5o+50u4*o+ that the cler6 of court did not err $hen he applied
the e'chan&e rate of CS O. U P5=.// B8i9n the absence of an% office &uide of the rate of e'chan&e
$hich said court functionar% $as dut% bound to follo$,8hence,9 the rate he applied is presu"ptivel%
correct,B )1e 4a6e /oe4 NOT 0*e.
T1e 2re4u62)*o+ o, re7u0ar*)y o, )1e 50er< o, 5our)G4 a220*5a)*o+ o, )1e e=51a+7e ra)e *4 +o)
5o+50u4*-e.
>>
") *4 /*42u)ab0e.
=5
(s such, the presu"ption "a% be overturned b% the re-uisite
rebuttin& evidence.
=:
"+ )1e 5a4e a) bar, 2e)*)*o+er4 1a-e a/e:ua)e0y 2ro-e+ .*)1 /o5u6e+)ary
e-*/e+5e
>3
)1a) )1e e=51a+7e ra)e .1e+ )1e 5o620a*+) .a4 ,*0e/ o+ Se2)e6ber 7, 199I .a4 US
Q1 R P4>.21.
In fine, the doc6et fees paid b% respondent $ere "NSUFF"C"ENT.
F*)1 re42e5) )o Pro)o+;4 ar7u6e+) )1a) )1e )r*a0 5our) /*/ +o) a5:u*re 9ur*4/*5)*o+ o-er )1e
5a4e *+ 0*71) o, )1e *+4u,,*5*e+) /o5<e) ,ee4, )1e 4a6e /oe4 NOT 0*e.
EN B$NC

RE( REHUEST OF (.M. No. /E<..<3<S!
N$T"ON$! COMM"TTEE
ON !EG$! $"#
B1C
TO ENEMPT Present,
!EG$! $"# C!"ENTS FROM
P$Y"NG F"!"NG, #OCLET
$N# OTER FEES.


Pro"ul&ated,

(u&ust 2E, 2//;
= & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & =
R E S O ! U T " O N
CORON$, J.(

The Misa"is Oriental !hapter of the Inte&rated 1ar of the Philippines 4I1P0 pro"ul&ated Resolution
$hich re-uested the I1P)s National !o""ittee on ?e&al (id
8=9
4N!?(0 to as6 for the e'e"ption fro"
the pa%"ent of filin&, doc6et and other fees of clients of the le&al aid offices in the various I1P
chapters.
The !ourt noted Resolution No. 25, series of 2//E and re-uired the I1P, throu&h the N!?(, to
co""ent thereon.
8:9
In a co""ent dated Dece"ber .E, 2//E,
8>9
the I1P, throu&h the N!?(, "ade the follo$in&
co""ents,
$CCESS TO ?UST"CE(
M$L"NG $N "#E$! $ RE$!"TY
(ccess to *ustice b% all, especiall% b% the poor, is not si"pl% an ideal in our societ%. Its e'istence is
essential in a de"ocrac% and in the rule of la$. (s such, it is &uaranteed b% no less than the
funda"ental la$,
Sec. ... Free a55e44 )o )1e 5our)4 and -uasi<*udicial bodies a+/ a/e:ua)e 0e7a0 a44*4)a+5e 41a00
+o) be /e+*e/ )o a+y 2er4o+ by rea4o+ o, 2o-er)y.
8.29
4e"phasis supplied0

The !ourt reco&ni@es the ri&ht of access to *ustice as the "ost i"portant pillar of le&al
e"po$er"ent of the "ar&inali@ed sectors of our societ%.
8.=9
("on& others, it has e'ercised its po$er
to Vpro"ul&ate rules concernin& the protection and enforce"ent of constitutional ri&htsW
8.59
to open
the doors of *ustice to the underprivile&ed and to allo$ the" to step inside the courts to be heard of
their plaints. In particular, indi&ent liti&ants are per"itted under Section 2., Rule =
8.:9
and Section .;,
Rule .5.
8.>9
of the Rules of !ourt to brin& suits in forma pauperis.
The I1P, pursuant to its &eneral ob*ectives to Vi"prove the ad"inistration of *ustice and enable the
1ar to dischar&e its public responsibilit% "ore effectivel%,W
8.39
assists the !ourt in providin& the poor
access to *ustice. In particular, it renders free le&al aid under the supervision of the N!?(.

$ NEF RU!E, $ NEF TOO!
FOR $CCESS TO ?UST"CE

Cnder the I1P)s Auidelines Aovernin& the stablish"ent and Operation of ?e&al (id Offices in (ll
!hapters of the I1P 4Auidelines on ?e&al (id0, the co"bined V"eans and "erit testsW shall be used
to deter"ine the eli&ibilit% of an applicant for le&al aid,

(RTI!? VIII
TSTS

S!. .;. Combined tests. G The !hapter ?e&al (id !o""ittee or the 8N!?(9, as the case
"a% be, shall pass upon the re-uest for le&al aid b% the co"bined application of the "eans test and
"erit test, and the consideration of other factors adverted to in the follo$in& sections.

S!. 2/. /eans test. G The "eans test ai"s at deter"inin& $hether the applicant has no
visible "eans of support or his inco"e is other$ise insufficient to provide the financial resources
necessar% to en&a&e co"petent private counsel o$in& to the de"ands for subsistence of his fa"il%,
considerin& the nu"ber of his dependents and the conditions prevailin& in the localit%.

The "eans test shall not be applicable to applicants $ho fall under the Develop"ental ?e&al
(id Pro&ra" such as Overseas 7ilipino #or6ers, fisher"en, far"ers, $o"en and children and other
disadvanta&ed &roups.

S!. 2.. /erit test. S T1e 6er*) )e4) 4ee<4 )o a45er)a*+ .1e)1er or +o) )1e a220*5a+);4
5au4e o, a5)*o+ or 1*4 /e,e+4e *4 -a0*/ a+/ 51a+5e4 o, e4)ab0*41*+7 )1e 4a6e a22ear
rea4o+ab0e.

S!. 22. Other factors. G The effect of the ?e&al (id Service or of the failure to render the
sa"e upon the Rule of ?a$, the proper ad"inistration of *ustice, the public interest involved in &iven
cases and the practice of la$ in the localit% shall li6e$ise be considered.

S!. 2=. !rivate practice. G !are shall be ta6en that the ?e&al aid is not availed of to the
detri"ent of the private practice of la$, or ta6en advanta&e of b% an%one for personal ends.

S!. 25. 0enial. G ?e&al aid "a% be denied to an applicant alread% receivin& ade-uate assistance
fro" an% source other than the Inte&rated 1ar.

T1e T6ea+4 a+/ 6er*) )e4)4U a22ear )o be rea4o+ab0e /e)er6*+a+)4 o, e0*7*b*0*)y ,or 5o-era7e
u+/er )1e 0e7a0 a*/ 2ro7ra6 o, )1e "BP. Nonetheless, the% "a% be i"proved to ensure that an%
e'e"ption fro" the pa%"ent of le&al fees that "a% be &ranted to clients of the N!?( and the le&al
aid offices of the various I1P chapters $ill reall% further the ri&ht of access to *ustice b% the poor. This
$ill &uarantee that the e'e"ption $ill neither be abused nor triviali@ed. To$ards this end, the
follo$in& shall be observed b% the N!?( and the le&al aid offices in I1P chapters nation$ide in
acceptin& clients and handlin& cases for the said clients,

$.M. No. 0I&11&7&SC A"RRD( Re( Ru0e o+ )1e E=e62)*o+ Fro6 )1e Pay6e+) o, !e7a0 Fee4 o, )1e
C0*e+)4 o, )1e Na)*o+a0 Co66*))ee o+ !e7a0 $*/ a+/ o, )1e !e7a0 $*/ O,,*5e4 *+ )1e !o5a0
C1a2)er4 o, )1e "+)e7ra)e/ Bar o, )1e P1*0*22*+e4

(RTI!? I
Purpose

Section .. !urpose. G This Rule is issued for the purpose of enforcin& the ri&ht of free access to
courts b% the poor &uaranteed under Section .., (rticle III of the !onstitution. It is intended to
increase the access to *ustice b% the poor b% e'e"ptin& fro" the pa%"ent of le&al fees incidental to
institutin& an action in court, as an ori&inal proceedin& or on appeal, -ualified indi&ent clients of the
N!?( and of the le&al aid offices in local I1P chapters nation$ide.
(RTI!? I
Definition of Ter"s

Section .. 0efinition of important terms. G 7or purposes of this Rule and as used herein, the
follo$in& ter"s shall be understood to be ho$ the% are defined under this Section,

4a0 VDevelop"ental le&al aidW "eans the rendition of le&al services in public interest causes
involvin& overseas $or6ers, fisherfol6, far"ers, laborers, indi&enous cultural co""unities, $o"en,
children and other disadvanta&ed &roups and "ar&inali@ed sectors+

4b0 VDisinterested personW refers to the punong barangay havin& *urisdiction over the place
$here an applicant for le&al aid or client of the N!?( or chapter le&al aid office resides+

4c0 V7alsit%W refers to an% "aterial "isrepresentation of fact or an% fraudulent, deceitful, false,
$ron& or "isleadin& state"ent in the application or affidavits sub"itted to support it or the affidavit of
a disinterested person re-uired to be sub"itted annuall% under this Rule $hich "a% substantiall%
affect the deter"ination of the -ualifications of the applicant or the client under the "eans and "erit
tests+

4d0 V?e&al feesW refers to the le&al fees i"posed under Rule .5. of the Rules of !ourt as a
necessar% incident of institutin& an action in court either as an ori&inal proceedin& or on appeal. In
particular, it includes filin& or doc6et fees, appeal fees, fees for issuance of provisional re"edies,
"ediation fees, sheriff)s fees, steno&rapher)s fees 4that is fees for transcript of steno&raphic notes0
and co""issioner)s fees+

4e0 VMeans testW refers to the set of criteria used to deter"ine $hether the applicant is one $ho
has no "one% or propert% sufficient and available for food, shelter and basic necessities for hi"self
and his fa"il%+

4f0 VMerit testW refers to the ascertain"ent of $hether the applicant)s cause of action or his
defense is valid and $hether the chances of establishin& the sa"e appear reasonable and

4&0 VRepresentativeW refers to the person authori@ed to file an application for le&al aid in behalf of
the applicant $hen the said applicant is prevented b% a co"pellin& reason fro" personall% filin& his
application. (s a rule, it refers to the i""ediate fa"il% "e"bers of the applicant. Ho$ever, it "a%
include an% of the applicant)s relatives or an% person or concerned citi@en of sufficient discretion $ho
has first<hand 6no$led&e of the personal circu"stances of the applicant as $ell as of the facts of the
applicant)s case.

(RTI!? III
!overa&e

Section .. !ersons qualified for exemption from payment of legal fees. G Persons $ho shall en*o%
the benefit of e'e"ption fro" the pa%"ent of le&al fees incidental to institutin& an action in court, as
an ori&inal proceedin& or on appeal, &ranted under this Rule shall be li"ited o+0y )o 50*e+)4 o, )1e
NC!$ a+/ )1e 51a2)er 0e7a0 a*/ o,,*5e4.

The said clients shall refer to those *+/*7e+)4 :ua0*,*e/ )o re5e*-e ,ree 0e7a0 a*/ 4er-*5e ,ro6 )1e
NC!$ a+/ )1e 51a2)er 0e7a0 a*/ o,,*5e4. Their -ualifications shall be deter"ined based on the
tests provided in this Rule.

Section 2. !ersons not covered by the 1ule. G The follo$in& shall be /*4:ua0*,*e/ fro" the covera&e
of this Rule. Nor "a% the% be accepted as clients b% the N!?( and the chapter le&al aid offices.

4a0 ?ur*/*5a0 2er4o+4+ e=5e2) in cases covered b% developmental legal aid or public interest
causes involvin& *uridical entities $hich are +o+&4)o5<, +o+&2ro,*) or7a+*Ja)*o+4, +o+&
7o-er+6e+)a0 or7a+*Ja)*o+4 a+/ 2eo20e;4 or7a+*Ja)*o+4 .1o4e *+/*-*/ua0 6e6ber4 .*00 2a44
)1e 6ea+4 )e4) 2ro-*/e/ *+ )1*4 Ru0e+

4b0 Persons $ho do not pass the "eans and "erit tests+

4c0 Par)*e4 a0rea/y re2re4e+)e/ by a 5ou+4e0 de parte+

4d0 O$ners or lessors of residential lands or buildin&s $ith respect to the filin& of collection or
unla$ful detainer suits a&ainst their tenants and

4e0 Persons $ho have been clients of the N!?( or chapter le&al aid office previousl% in a case
$here the N!?( or chapter le&al aid office $ithdre$ its representation because of a falsit% in the
application or in an% of the affidavits supportin& the said application.

Section =. Cases not covered by the 1ule. G The N!?( and the chapter le&al aid offices shall not
handle the follo$in&,

4a0 Ca4e4 .1ere 5o+,0*5)*+7 *+)ere4)4 $ill be represented b% the N!?( and the chapter le&al
aid offices and

4b0 Pro4e5u)*o+ o, 5r*6*+a0 5a4e4 *+ 5our).

(RTI!? IV
Tests of Indi&enc%

Section .. "ests for determining who may be clients of the .C2& and the legal aid offices in local
I3! chapters. G The N!?( or the chapter le&al aid co""ittee, as the case "a% be, shall pass upon
re-uests for le&al aid b% the co"bined application of the "eans and "erit tests and the
consideration of other relevant factors provided for in the follo$in& sections.

Section 2. /eans test4 exception. G 4a0 This test shall be based on the follo$in& criteria, 4i0 the
applicant and that of his i""ediate fa"il% "ust have a &ross "onthl% inco"e that /oe4 +o) e=5ee/
a+ a6ou+) /oub0e )1e 6o+)10y 6*+*6u6 .a7e o, a+ e620oyee *+ )1e 20a5e .1ere )1e
a220*5a+) re4*/e4 and 4ii0 he /oe4 +o) o.+ rea0 2ro2er)y .*)1 a ,a*r 6ar<e) -a0ue a4 4)a)e/ *+
)1e 5urre+) )a= /e50ara)*o+ o, 6ore )1a+ T1ree u+/re/ T1ou4a+/ AP>00,000.00D Pe4o4.

In this connection, the applicant shall e'ecute an a,,*/a-*) o, *+/*7e+5y 4printed at the bac6
of the application for"0 statin& that he and his i""ediate fa"il% do not earn a &ross inco"e
above"entioned, nor o$n an% real propert% $ith the fair value afore"entioned, supported b% an
affidavit of a disinterested person attestin& to the truth of the applicant)s affidavit. The latest inco"e
ta' return andJor current ta' declaration, if an%, shall be attached to the applicant)s affidavit.

4b0 The "eans test shall +o) be a220*5ab0e to applicants $ho fall under the
develop"ental le&al aid pro&ra" such as o-er4ea4 .or<er4, ,*41er,o0<, ,ar6er4, 0aborer4,
*+/*7e+ou4 5u0)ura0 5o66u+*)*e4, .o6e+, 51*0/re+ a+/ o)1er /*4a/-a+)a7e/ 7rou24.

Section =. /erit test. G ( case shall be considered 6er*)or*ou4 *, a+ a44e446e+) o, )1e 0a. a+/
e-*/e+5e a) 1a+/ /*450o4e4 )1a) )1e 0e7a0 4er-*5e .*00 be *+ a*/ o, 9u4)*5e or *+ )1e ,ur)1era+5e
)1ereo,, )a<*+7 *+)o 5o+4*/era)*o+ )1e *+)ere4)4 o, )1e 2ar)y a+/ )1o4e o, 4o5*e)y. ( case ,a*04
this test *,, after consideration of the la$ and evidence presented b% the applicant, *) a22ear4 )1a) *)
*4 *+)e+/e/ 6ere0y )o 1ara44 or *+9ure )1e o22o4*)e 2ar)y or )o .or< o22re44*o+ or .ro+7.

Section 5. Other relevant factors that may be considered. G The effect of le&al aid or of the failure to
render the sa"e upon the rule of la$, the proper ad"inistration of *ustice, the public interest involved
in a &iven case and the practice of la$ in the localit% shall li6e$ise be considered.

(RTI!? V
(cceptance and Handlin& of !ases

Section .. !rocedure in accepting cases. G The follo$in& procedure shall be observed in the
acceptance of cases for purposes of this Rule,

4a0 7ilin& of application G (n application shall be "ade personall% b% the applicant, unless there
is a co"pellin& reason $hich prevents hi" fro" doin& so, in $hich case his representative "a%
appl% for hi". It shall adhere substantiall% to the for" "ade for that purpose. It shall be prepared and
si&ned b% the applicant or, in proper cases, his dul% authori@ed representative in at least three
copies.

(pplications for le&al aid shall be filed $ith the N!?( or $ith the chapter le&al
aid co""ittee.

The N!?( shall, as "uch as possible, concentrate on cases of para"ount
i"portance or national i"pact.

Re-uests received b% the I1P National Office shall be referred b% the N!?( to
the proper chapter le&al aid co""ittee of the localit% $here the cases have to be filed or are
pendin&. The chapter president and the chair"an of the chapter)s le&al aid co""ittee shall be
advised of such referral.

4b0 Intervie$ G The applicant shall be intervie$ed b% a "e"ber of the chapter le&al aid
co""ittee or an% chapter "e"ber authori@ed b% the chapter le&al aid co""ittee to deter"ine the
applicant)s -ualifications based on the "eans and "erit tests and other relevant factors. He shall
also be re-uired to sub"it copies of his latest inco"e ta' returns andJor current ta' declaration, if
available, and e'ecute an affidavit of indi&enc% printed at the bac6 of the application for" $ith
the supportin& affidavit of a disinterested person attestin& to the truth of the applicant)s affidavit.

(fter the intervie$, the applicant shall be infor"ed that he can follo$ up the
action on his application after five 4:0 $or6in& da%s.

4c0 (ction on the application G The chapter le&al aid co""ittee shall pass upon ever% re-uest
for le&al aid and sub"it its reco""endation to the chapter board of officers $ithin three 4=0 $or6in&
da%s after the intervie$ of the applicant. The basis of the reco""endation shall be stated.

The chapter board of officers shall revie$ and act on the reco""endation of the chapter le&al aid
co""ittee $ithin t$o 420 $or6in& da%s fro" receipt thereof+ !rovided, ho$ever, that in ur&ent
"atters re-uirin& pro"pt or i""ediate action, the chapter)s e'ecutive director of le&al aid or
$hoever perfor"s his functions "a% provisionall% act on the application, sub*ect to revie$ b% the
chapter le&al aid co""ittee and, thereafter, b% the chapter board of officers.

The action of the chapter board of officers on the application shall be final.

4d0 Cases which may be provisionally accepted. G In the follo$in& cases, the N!?( or the
chapter le&al aid office, throu&h the chapter)s e'ecutive director of le&al aid or $hoever perfor"s his
functions "a% accept cases provisionall% pendin& verification of the applicant)s indi&enc% and an
evaluation of the "erit of his case.

4i0 #here a $arrant for the arrest of the applicant has been issued+

4ii0 #here a pleadin& has to be filed i""ediatel% to avoid adverse effects to the applicant+

4iii0 #here an appeal has to be ur&entl% perfected or a petition for certiorari, prohibition or
"anda"us filed has to be filed i""ediatel%+ and

4iv0 Other si"ilar ur&ent cases.

4e0 (ssi&n"ent of control nu"ber G Cpon approval of the chapter board of officers of a person)s
application and the applicant is found to be -ualified for le&al assistance, the case shall be assi&ned
a control nu"ber. The nu"berin& shall be consecutive startin& fro" Ianuar% to Dece"ber of ever%
%ear. The control nu"ber shall also indicate the re&ion and the chapter handlin& the case.

'a"ple,
Re&ion
8.E9
!hapter Lear Month Nu"ber
AM < Manila < 2//; < /= < /;;

4f0 Issuance of a certification G (fter an application is approved and a control nu"ber dul%
assi&ned, the chapter board of officers shall issue a certification that the person 4that is, the
successful applicant0 is a client of the N!?( or of the chapter le&al aid office. The certification shall
bear the control nu"ber of the case and shall state the na"e of the client and the nature of the
*udicial action sub*ect of the le&al aid of the N!?( or the le&al aid office of a local I1P chapter.

The certification shall be issued to the successful applicant free of char&e.

Section 2. &ssignment of cases. G (fter a case is &iven a control nu"ber, the chapter board of
officers shall refer it bac6 to the chapter le&al aid co""ittee. The chapter le&al aid co""ittee shall
assi&n the case to an% chapter "e"ber $ho is $illin& to handle the case.

In case no chapter "e"ber has si&nified an intention to handle the case voluntaril%, the chapter
le&al aid co""ittee shall refer the "atter to the chapter board of officers to&ether $ith the na"es of
at least three "e"bers $ho, in the chapter le&al aid co""ittee)s discretion, "a% co"petentl% render
le&al aid on the "atter. The chapter board of officers shall appoint one chapter "e"ber fro" a"on&
the list of na"es sub"itted b% the chapter le&al aid co""ittee. The chapter "e"ber chosen "a%
not refuse the appoint"ent e'cept on the &round of conflict of interest or other e-uall% co"pellin&
&rounds as provided in the !ode of Professional Responsibilit%,
8.;9
in $hich case the chapter board of
officers shall appoint his replace"ent fro" a"on& the re"ainin& na"es in the list previousl%
sub"itted b% the chapter le&al aid co""ittee.

The chapter le&al aid co""ittee and the chapter board of officers shall ta6e the necessar%
"easures to ensure that cases are $ell<distributed to chapter "e"bers.

Section =. !olicies and guidelines in the acceptance and handling of cases. G The follo$in& policies
and &uidelines shall be observed in the acceptance and handlin& of cases,

4a0 7irst co"e, first served G #here both the co"plainantJplaintiffJpetitioner and defendantJ
respondent appl% for le&al aid and both are -ualified, the first to see6 assistance shall be &iven
preference.

4b0 (voidance of conflict of interest G #here acceptance of a case $ill &ive rise to a conflict of
interest on the part of the chapter le&al aid office, the applicant shall be dul% infor"ed and advised to
see6 the services of a private counsel or another le&al aid or&ani@ation.

#here handlin& of the case $ill &ive rise to a conflict of interest on the part of
the chapter "e"ber assi&ned to the case, the client shall be dul% infor"ed and advised about it. The
handlin& la$%er shall also infor" the chapter le&al aid co""ittee so that another chapter "e"ber
"a% be assi&ned to handle the case. 7or purposes of choosin& the substitute handlin& la$%er, the
rule in the i""ediatel% precedin& section shall be observed.

4c0 ?e&al aid is purel% &ratuitous and honorar% G No "e"ber of the chapter or "e"ber of the
staff of the N!?( or chapter le&al aid office shall directl% or indirectl% de"and or re-uest fro" an
applicant or client an% co"pensation, &ift or present for le&al aid services bein& applied for or
rendered.

4d0 Sa"e standard of conduct and e-ual treat"ent G ( chapter "e"ber $ho is tas6ed to handle
a case accepted b% the N!?( or b% the chapter le&al aid office shall observe the sa"e standard of
conduct &overnin& his relations $ith pa%in& clients. He shall treat the client of the N!?( or of the
chapter le&al aid office and the said client)s case in a "anner that is e-ual and si"ilar to his
treat"ent of a pa%in& client and his case.

4e0 7alsit% in the application or in the affidavits G (n% falsit% in the application or in the affidavit of
indi&enc% or in the affidavit of a disinterested person shall be sufficient cause for the N!?(
or chapter le&al aid office to $ithdra$ or ter"inate the le&al aid. 7or this purpose, the chapter board
of officers shall authori@e the handlin& la$%er to file the proper "anifestation of $ithdra$al of
appearance of the chapter le&al aid office in the case $ith a "otion for the dis"issal of the co"plaint
or action of the errin& client. The court, after hearin&, shall approve the $ithdra$al of appearance
and &rant the "otion, $ithout pre*udice to $hatever cri"inal liabilit% "a% have been incurred.

Violation of this polic% shall dis-ualif% the errin& client fro" availin& of the
benefits of this Rule in the future.

4f0 State"ent in the initiator% pleadin& G To avail of the benefits of the Rule, the initiator%
pleadin& shall state as an essential preli"inar% alle&ation that 4i0 the part% initiatin& the action is a
client of the N!?( or of the chapter le&al aid office and therefore entitled to e'e"ption fro" the
pa%"ent of le&al fees under this Rule and 4ii0 a certified true cop% of the certification issued pursuant
to Section .4e0, of this (rticle is attached or anne'ed to the pleadin&.

7ailure to "a6e the state"ent shall be a &round for the dis"issal of the action
$ithout pre*udice to its refilin&.

The sa"e rule shall appl% in case the client, throu&h the N!?( or chapter
le&al aid office, files an appeal.

4&0 (ttach"ent of certification in initiator% pleadin& G ( certified true cop% of the certification
issued pursuant to Section .4e0, of this (rticle shall be attached as an anne' to the initiator%
pleadin&.

7ailure to attach a certified true cop% of the said certification shall be a &round for the dis"issal of
the action $ithout pre*udice to its refilin&.

The sa"e rule shall appl% in case the client, throu&h the N!?( or chapter
le&al aid office, files an appeal.

4h0 Si&nin& of pleadin&s G (ll co"plaints, petitions, ans$ers, replies, "e"oranda and other
i"portant pleadin&s or "otions to be filed in courts shall be si&ned b% the handlin& la$%er and co<
si&ned b% the chairperson or a "e"ber of the chapter le&al aid co""ittee, or in ur&ent cases, b% the
e'ecutive director of le&al aid or $hoever perfor"s his functions.

Ordinar% "otions such as "otions for e'tension of ti"e to file a pleadin& or for
postpone"ent of hearin& and "anifestations "a% be si&ned b% the handlin& la$%er alone.

4i0 Motions for e'tension of ti"e or for postpone"ent G The filin& of "otions for e'tension of
ti"e to file a pleadin& or for postpone"ent of hearin& shall be avoided as "uch as possible as the%
cause dela% to the case and prolon& the proceedin&s.

4*0 Transfer of cases G Transfer of cases fro" one handlin& la$%er to another shall be affected
onl% upon approval of the chapter le&al aid co""ittee.

Section 5. 0ecision to appeal. G 4a0 (ll appeals "ust be "ade on the re-uest of the client hi"self.
7or this purpose, the client shall be "ade to fill up a re-uest to appeal.

4b0 Onl% "eritorious cases shall be appealed. If the handlin& la$%er, in consultation $ith the
chapter le&al aid co""ittee, finds that there is no "erit to the appeal, the client should be
i""ediatel% infor"ed thereof in $ritin& and the record of the case turned over to hi", under proper
receipt. If the client insists on appealin& the case, the la$%er handlin& the case should perfect the
appeal before turnin& over the records of the case to hi".

Section :. !rotection of private practice. G Ct"ost care shall be ta6en to ensure that le&al aid is
neither availed of to the detri"ent of the private practice of la$ nor ta6en advanta&e of b% an%one for
purel% personal ends.



(RTI!? VI
#ithdra$al of ?e&al (id and Ter"ination of 'e"ption

Section .. 5ithdrawal of legal aid. G The N!?( or the chapter le&al aid co""ittee "a%, in
*ustifiable instances as provided in the ne't Section, direct the handlin& la$%er to $ithdra$
representation of a client)s cause upon approval of the I1P 1oard of Aovernors 4in the case of the
N!?(0 or of the chapter board of officers 4in the case of the chapter le&al aid co""ittee0 and
throu&h a proper "otion filed in !ourt.

Section 2. 6rounds for withdrawal of legal aid. G #ithdra$al "a% be $arranted in the follo$in&
situations,

4a0 In a case that has been provisionall% accepted, $here it is subse-uentl% ascertained that the
client is not -ualified for le&al aid+

4b0 #here the client)s inco"e or resources i"prove and he no lon&er -ualifies for continued
assistance based on the "eans test. 7or this purpose, on or before Ianuar% .: ever% %ear, the client
shall sub"it an affidavit of a disinterested person statin& that the clientand his i""ediate fa"il% do
not earn a &ross inco"e "entioned in Section 2, (rticle V, nor o$n an% real propert% $ith the fair
"ar6et value "entioned in the sa"e Section+

4c0 #hen it is sho$n or found that the client co""itted a falsit% in the application or in the
affidavits sub"itted to support the application+

4d0 #hen the client subse-uentl% en&a&es a de parte counsel or is provided $ith a de
oficio counsel+

4e0 #hen, despite proper advice fro" the handlin& la$%er, the client cannot be refrained fro"
doin& thin&s $hich the la$%er hi"self ou&ht not do under the ethics of the le&al profession,
particularl% $ith reference to their conduct to$ards courts, *udicial officers, $itnesses and liti&ants, or
the client insists on havin& control of the trial, theor% of the case, or strate&% in procedure $hich
$ould tend to result in incalculable har" to the interests of the client+

4f0 #hen, despite notice fro" the handlin& la$%er, the client does not cooperate or coordinate
$ith the handlin& la$%er to the pre*udice of the proper and effective rendition of le&al aid such as
$hen the client fails to provide docu"ents necessar% to support his case or unreasonabl% fails to
attend hearin&s $hen his presence thereat is re-uired+ and

4&0 #hen it beco"es apparent that the representation of the client)s cause $ill result in a
representation of conflictin& interests, as $here the adverse part% had previousl% en&a&ed the
services of the N!?( or of the chapter le&al aid office and the sub*ect "atter of the liti&ation is
directl% related to the services previousl% rendered to the adverse part%.

Section =. 'ffect of withdrawal. G The court, after hearin&, shall allo$ the N!?( or the chapter le&al
aid office to $ithdra$ if it is satisfied that the &round for such $ithdra$al e'ists.

'cept $hen the $ithdra$al is based on para&raphs 4b0, 4d0 and 4&0 of the i""ediatel%
precedin& Section, the court shall also order the dis"issal of the case. Such dis"issal is $ithout
pre*udice to $hatever cri"inal liabilit% "a% have been incurred if the $ithdra$al is based on
para&raph 4c0 of the i""ediatel% precedin& Section.

(RTI!? VII
Miscellaneous Provisions

Section .. 2ien on favorable 7udgment. G The a"ount of the doc6et and other la$ful fees $hich the
client $as e'e"pted fro" pa%in& shall be a lien on an% *ud&"ent rendered in the case favorable to
the indi&ent, unless the court other$ise provides.

In case, attorne%)s fees have been a$arded to the client, the sa"e shall belon& to the N!?(
or to the chapter le&al aid office that rendered the le&al aid, as the case "a% be. It shall for" part of
a special fund $hich shall be e'clusivel% used to support the le&al aid pro&ra" of the N!?( or the
chapter le&al aid office. In this connection, the chapter board of officers shall report the receipt of
attorne%)s fees pursuant to this Section to the N!?( $ithin ten 4./0 da%s fro" receipt thereof. The
N!?( shall, in turn, include the data on attorne%)s fees received b% I1P chapters pursuant to this
Section in its li-uidation report for the annual subsid% for le&al aid.

Section 2. 0uty of .C2& to prepare forms. G The N!?( shall prepare the standard for"s to be used
in connection $ith this Rule. In particular, the N!?( shall prepare the follo$in& standard for"s, the
application for", the affidavit of indi&enc%, the supportin& affidavit of a disinterested person, the
affidavit of a disinterested person re-uired to be sub"itted annuall% under Section 24b0, (rticle VI,
the certification issued b% the N!?( or the chapter board of officers under Section .4f0, (rticle V and
the re-uest to appeal.

The said for"s, e'cept the certification, shall be in 7ilipino. #ithin si't% 4>/0 da%s fro" receipt
of the for"s fro" the N!?(, the chapter le&al aid offices shall "a6e translations of the said for"s in
the do"inant dialect used in their respective localities.

Section =. 'ffect of 1ule on right to bring suits in forma pauperis. G Nothin& in this Rule shall be
considered to preclude those persons not covered either b% this Rule or b% the e'e"ption fro" the
pa%"ent of le&al fees &ranted to clients of the Public (ttorne%)s Office under Section .><D of R(
;5/> to liti&ate in forma pauperis under Section 2., Rule = and Section .; Rule .5. of the Rules of
!ourt.

Section 5. Compliance with 1ule on /andatory 2egal &id %ervice. G ?e&al aid service rendered b% a
la$%er under this Rule either as a handlin& la$%er or as an intervie$er of applicants under Section
.4b0, (rticle IV hereof shall be credited for purposes of co"pliance $ith the Rule on Mandator% ?e&al
(id Service.

The chairperson of the chapter le&al aid office shall issue the certificate si"ilar to that issued
b% the !ler6 of !ourt in Section :4b0 of the Rule on Mandator% ?e&al (id Service.

(RTI!? VIII
ffectivit%

Section .. 'ffectivity. G This Rule shall beco"e effective after fifteen da%s follo$in& its publication in
a ne$spaper of &eneral circulation.


The above rule, in con*unction $ith Section 2., Rule = and Section .;, Rule .5. of the Rules of
!ourt, the Rule on Mandator% ?e&al (id Service and the Rule of Procedure for S"all !lai"s !ases,
shall for" a solid base of rules upon $hich the ri&ht of access to courts b% the poor shall be
i"ple"ented. #ith these rules, $e e-uip the poor $ith the tools to effectivel%, efficientl% and easil%
enforce their ri&hts in the *udicial s%ste".



$ F"N$! FOR#

-uit% $ill not suffer a $ron& to be $ithout a re"ed%. 8bi 7us ibi remedium. #here there is a ri&ht,
there "ust be a re"ed%. The re"ed% "ust not onl% be effective and efficient, but also readil%
accessible. 7or a re"ed% that is inaccessible is no re"ed% at all.

The !onstitution &uarantees the ri&hts of the poor to free access to the courts and to ade-uate le&al
assistance. The le&al aid service rendered b% the N!?( and le&al aid offices of I1P chapters
nation$ide addresses onl% the ri&ht to ade-uate le&al assistance. Recipients of the service of the
N!?( and le&al aid offices of I1P chapters "a% en*o% free access to courts b% e'e"ptin& the" fro"
the pa%"ent of fees assessed in connection $ith the filin& of a co"plaint or action in court. #ith
these t$in initiatives, the &uarantee of Section .., (rticle III of !onstitution is advanced and access
to *ustice is increased b% brid&in& a si&nificant &ap and re"ovin& a "a*or roadbloc6.

FEREFORE, the Misa"is Oriental !hapter of the Inte&rated 1ar of the Philippines is
hereb% COMMEN#E# for helpin& increase the access to *ustice b% the poor. The re-uest of the
Misa"is Oriental !hapter for the e'e"ption fro" the pa%"ent of filin&, doc6et and other fees of the
clients of the le&al aid offices of the various I1P chapters is GR$NTE#. The Rule on the 'e"ption
7ro" the Pa%"ent of ?e&al 7ees of the !lients of the National !o""ittee on ?e&al (id 4N!?(0 and
of the ?e&al (id Offices in the ?ocal !hapters of the Inte&rated 1ar of the Philippines 4I1P0 4$hich
shall be assi&ned the doc6et nu"ber (.M. No. /E<..<3<S! 8IRR9 provided in this resolution is
hereb% $PPRO%E#. In this connection, the !ler6 of !ourt is #"RECTE# to cause the publication of
the said rule in a ne$spaper of &eneral circulation $ithin five da%s fro" the pro"ul&ation of this
resolution.

The Office of the !ourt (d"inistrator is hereb% directed to pro"ptl% issue a circular to infor" all
courts in the Philippines of the i"port of this resolution.

SO OR#ERE#.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
N 1(N!
$. M. No. 09&3&9&SC $u7u4) 19, 2009
RE( Huery o, Mr. Ro7er C. Pr*ore451* Re E=e62)*o+ ,ro6 !e7a0 a+/ F*0*+7 Fee4 o, )1e Goo/
S1e21er/ Fou+/a)*o+, "+5.
R S O ? C T I O N
BERS$M"N, J.:
In his letter dated Ma% 22, 2//; addressed to the !hief Iustice, Mr. Ro&er !. Prioreschi,
ad"inistrator of the Aood Shepherd 7oundation, Inc., $rote,
The Aood Shepherd 7oundation, Inc. is ver% &rateful for %our first Indorse"ent to pa% a no"inal fee
of Php :,///.// and the balance upon the collection action of ./ "illion pesos, thus &ivin& us
access to the 9ustice %ystem previousl% denied b% an up<front e'cessive court fee.
The Hon. !ourt (d"inistrator Iose Pere@ pointed out to the need of co"pl%in& $ith O!( !ircular
No. 52<2//: and Rule .5. that reserves this Bprivile&eB to indi&ent persons. #hile *ud&es are
appointed to interpret the la$, this t%pe of la$ see"s to be e'tre"el% detailed $ith re-uire"ents that
do not leave "uch roo" for interpretations.
B%ERY "MPORT$NT( "+ a//*)*o+, )1*4 0a. /ea04 6a*+0y .*)1 8*+/*-*/ua0 *+/*7e+)8 a+/ *) /oe4
NOT *+50u/e Fou+/a)*o+4 or $44o5*a)*o+4 )1a) .or< .*)1 a+/ ,or )1e 6o4) "+/*7e+) 2er4o+4.C
(s seen in our (rticle of Incorporation, since .;E: the Aood Shepherd 7oundation, Inc. reached<out
to the poorest a"on& the poor, to the ne$l% born and abandoned babies, to children $ho never sa$
the s"ile of their "other, to old people $ho cannot afford a fe$ pesos to pa% for Bco""on
prescriptionsB, to bro6en fa"ilies $ho returned to a nor"al life. In other $ords, $e have been
$or6in& hard for the ver% 7ilipino people, that the Aovern"ent and the societ% cannot reach to, or
have re*ected or abandoned the".
!an the !ourts &rant to our 7oundation $ho $or6s for indi&ent and underprivile&ed people, the
sa"e option &ranted to indi&ent peopleF
The t$o 'ecutive Iud&es, that $e have approached, fear accusations of favoritis" or other 6ind of
attac6 if the% approve so"ethin& $hich is not clearl% and specificall% stated in the la$ or approved
b% %our HONOR.
!an %our Honor help us once "oreF
Arateful for %our understandin&, Aod bless %ou and %our underta6in&s.
#e shall be privile&ed if %ou find ti"e to visit our orphana&e G the Ho"e of ?ove G and the Spiritual
Retreat !enter in (ntipolo !it%.
B%ERY "MPORT$NT( To ans$er the -uer% of Mr. Prioreschi, the Cour)4 C$NNOT 7ra+) )o
,ou+/a)*o+4 0*<e )1e Goo/ S1e21er/ Fou+/a)*o+, "+5. )1e 4a6e e=e62)*o+ ,ro6 2ay6e+) o,
0e7a0 ,ee4 7ra+)e/ )o *+/*7e+) 0*)*7a+)4 e-e+ *, )1e ,ou+/a)*o+4 are .or<*+7 ,or *+/*7e+) a+/
u+/er2r*-*0e7e/ 2eo20e.C
The basis for the e'e"ption fro" le&al and filin& fees is the free access clause, e"bodied in Sec. ..,
(rt. III of the .;E3 !onstitution, thus,
Sec. ... 7ree access to the courts and -uasi *udicial bodies and ade-uate le&al assistance shall not
be denied to an% person b% reason of povert%.
The i"portance of the ri&ht to free access to the courts and -uasi *udicial bodies and to ade-uate
le&al assistance cannot be denied. ( "ove to re"ove the provision on free access fro" the
!onstitution on the &round that it $as alread% covered b% the e-ual protection clause $as defeated
b% the desire to &ive constitutional stature to such specific protection of the poor.
.
In i"ple"entation of the ri&ht of free access under the !onstitution, the Supre"e !ourt pro"ul&ated
rules, specificall%, Sec. 2., Rule =, Rules of !ourt,
2
and Sec. .;, Rule .5., Rules of !ourt,
=
$hich
respectivel% state thus,
Sec. 2.. Indi&ent part%. X ( part% "a% be authori@ed to liti&ate his action, clai" or defense as an
indi&ent if the court, upon an e' parte application and hearin&, is satisfied that the part% is one $ho
has no "one% or propert% sufficient and available for food, shelter and basic necessities for hi"self
and his fa"il%.
Such authorit% shall include an e'e"ption fro" pa%"ent of doc6et and other la$ful fees, and of
transcripts of steno&raphic notes $hich the court "a% order to be furnished hi". The a"ount of the
doc6et and other la$ful fees $hich the indi&ent $as e'e"pted fro" pa%in& shall be a lien on an%
*ud&"ent rendered in the case favorable to the indi&ent, unless the court other$ise provides.
(n% adverse part% "a% contest the &rant of such authorit% at an% ti"e before *ud&"ent is rendered
b% the trial court. If the court should deter"ine after hearin& that the part% declared as an indi&ent is
in fact a person $ith sufficient inco"e or propert%, the proper doc6et and other la$ful fees shall be
assessed and collected b% the cler6 of court. If pa%"ent is not "ade $ithin the ti"e fi'ed b% the
court, e'ecution shall issue for the pa%"ent thereof, $ithout pre*udice to such other sanctions as the
court "a% i"pose. 422a0(avvphi(
Sec. .;. Indi&ent liti&ants e'e"pt fro" pa%"ent of le&al fees.G Indi&ent liti&ants 4a0 $hose &ross
inco"e and that of their i""ediate fa"il% do not e'ceed an a"ount double the "onthl% "ini"u"
$a&e of an e"plo%ee and 4b0 $ho do not o$n real propert% $ith a fair "ar6et value as stated in the
current ta' declaration of "ore than three hundred thousand 4P=//,///.//0 pesos shall be e'e"pt
fro" pa%"ent of le&al fees.
The le&al fees shall be a lien on an% *ud&"ent rendered in the case favorable to the indi&ent liti&ant
unless the court other$ise provides.
To be entitled to the e'e"ption herein provided, the liti&ant shall e'ecute an affidavit that he and his
i""ediate fa"il% do not earn a &ross inco"e above"entioned, and the% do not o$n an% real
propert% $ith the fair value afore"entioned, supported b% an affidavit of a disinterested person
attestin& to the truth of the liti&ant)s affidavit. The current ta' declaration, if an%, shall be attached to
the liti&ant)s affidavit.
(n% falsit% in the affidavit of liti&ant or disinterested person shall be sufficient cause to dis"iss the
co"plaint or action or to stri6e out the pleadin& of that part%, $ithout pre*udice to $hatever cri"inal
liabilit% "a% have been incurred.
B%ERY "MPORT$NT, The clear intent and precise lan&ua&e of the afore-uoted provisions of the
Rules of !ourt indicate that o+0y a +a)ura0 2ar)y 0*)*7a+) "a% be re&arded as an indi&ent liti&ant.
The Aood Shepherd 7oundation, Inc., bein& a corporation invested b% the State $ith a *uridical
personalit% separate and distinct fro" that of its "e"bers,
5
is a *uridical person. ("on& others, it has
the po$er to ac-uire and possess propert% of all 6inds as $ell as incur obli&ations and brin& civil or
cri"inal actions, in confor"it% $ith the la$s and re&ulations of their or&ani@ation.
:
(s a *uridical
person, therefore, it cannot be accorded the e'e"ption fro" le&al and filin& fees &ranted to indi&ent
liti&ants.C
T1a) )1e Goo/ S1e21er/ Fou+/a)*o+, "+5. *4 .or<*+7 ,or *+/*7e+) a+/ u+/er2r*-*0e7e/ 2eo20e
*4 o, +o 6o6e+). !learl%, the !onstitution has e'plicitl% pre"ised the free access clause on a
person)s povert%, a condition that onl% a natural person can suffer.
There are other reasons that $arrant the re*ection of the re-uest for e'e"ption in favor of a *uridical
person. 7or one, e'tendin& the e'e"ption to a *uridical person on the &round that it $or6s for
indi&ent and underprivile&ed people "a% be prone to abuse 4even $ith the i"position of ri&id
docu"entation re-uire"ents0, particularl% b% corporations and entities bent on circu"ventin& the
rule on pa%"ent of the fees. (lso, the scrutin% of co"pliance $ith the docu"entation re-uire"ents
"a% prove too ti"e<consu"in& and $asteful for the courts.
In vie$ of the fore&oin&, the Aood Shepherd 7oundation, Inc. cannot be e'tended the e'e"ption
fro" le&al and filin& fees despite its $or6in& for indi&ent and underprivile&ed people.
SO ORDRD.
!UC$S P. BERS$M"N
(ssociate Iustice