Author: Dompor, Joachim, Alfonso P.

BAGUIO MARKET VENDORS vs HON. CORTES

(2010)
Petition: Review on Certiorari
Petitioner: Baguio Market Vendors Multi-Purpose Cooperative
(BAMARVEMPCO), represented by Recto Inso, Operations Manager
Respondent: Hon. Iluminada Cabato-Cortes, Executive Judge, Regional
Trial Court, Baguio City
Ponencia: Carpio
DOCTRINE:
Congress cannot repeal, alter, or supplement Supreme Court rules.
FACTS:
1. Petitioner Market Vendors Multi-Purpose Cooperative is a credit
cooperative organized under RA 6938 (Cooperation Code)
a. Article 62 (6) of RA 6938 exempts cooperatives from the
payment of all court and sheriffs fees payable to the
Government for and in connection with all actions brought
under this Code
2. In 2004, petitioner, as mortgagee, filed with the Clerk of Court of the
RTC Baguio City a petition to extra-judicially foreclose a mortgage
under Act 3135
3. Under Section 7(c) of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as amended,
petitions for extrajudicial foreclosure are subject to legal fees based
on the value of the mortgagees claim. Invoking Article 62 (6) of RA
6938, petitioner sought exemption from payment of the fees
4. Judge Cortes denied the request for exemption, citing section 22 of
Rule 141 of the Rules of Court
a. Only exemptions: Republic of the Philippines, its agencies
and instrumentalities, and certain suits of LGUs
5. Petitioner sought reconsideration but the same was denied
a. Article 62 (6) is inapplicable because fees collected under
Rule 141 are not fees payable to the Government
6. Office of the Chief Attorney (OCAT), in its comment, recommends the
denial of the petition on the ground that the power to impose judicial
fees is eminently judicial and that the 1987 Constitution insulated the
Courts rule making power from Congressional interference
Congress cannot alter judicial rules.
ISSUES:
1. WoN petitioners application for extrajudicial foreclosure is exempt
from legal fees under Article 62 (6) of RA 6938
PROVISION:

Section 5, Art VIII of the Constitution

o The Supreme Court may [p]romulgate rules concerning
the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights,
pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission
to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal
assistance to the under-privileged. Such rules shall provide a
simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy
disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the
same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify
substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and
quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless
disapproved by the Supreme Court.

RULING + RATIO:
1. NO. Petitioners application for extrajudicial foreclosure is not exempt
from legal fees. Article 62 (6) of RA 6938 does not apply.
a. Scope of legal fees exempt under Art 62 (6) of RA 6938
i. Actions brought under RA 6938
ii. Actions brought by the Cooperative Development
Authority to enforce the payment of obligations in
favor of cooperatives
b. Article 62 (6) is no authority for petitioner to claim exemption
i. Fees imposable on petitioner do not pertain to an
action brought under RA 6938 but to an action under
Act 3135
ii. Petitioner is not the Cooperative Development
Authority
c.

Re: Petition for Recognition of the Exemption of the Government

Service Insurance System from Payment of Legal Fees

i. 1935 and 1973 Constitutions conferred upon the

Court the power to promulgate rules () but these
charters also granted to the legislature the power to
repeal, alter, or supplement such rules
ii. 1987 Constitution deleted Congress subsidiary and
corrective power over judicial rules
iii. Courts power to promote judicial rules no longer
shared with Congress
iv. [T]he payment of legal fees is a vital component of the
rules promulgated by this Court concerning pleading,
practice and procedure, it cannot be validly annulled,
changed or modified by Congress. As one of the
safeguards of this Courts institutional independence, the
power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice and
procedure is now the Courts exclusive domain

DISPOSITION: Petition DENIED. Assailed orders AFFIRMED.

Author: Dompor, Joachim, Alfonso P.