11/13/2016 G.R.No.

75919

TodayisSunday,November13,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

ENBANC

G.R.No.75919May7,1987

MANCHESTERDEVELOPMENTCORPORATION,ETAL.,petitioners,
vs.
COURTOFAPPEALS,CITYLANDDEVELOPMENTCORPORATION,STEPHENROXAS,ANDREWLUISON,
GRACELUISONandJOSEDEMAISIP,respondents.

Tanjuatco,OretaandTanjuatcoforpetitioners.

PecabarLawOfficesforprivaterespondents.

RESOLUTION

GANCAYCO,J.:

ActingonthemotionforreconsiderationoftheresolutionoftheSecondDivisionofJanuary28,1987andanother
motiontoreferthecasetoandtobeheardinoralargumentbytheCourtEnBancfiledbypetitioners,themotion
toreferthecasetotheCourtenbancisgrantedbutthemotiontosetthecasefororalargumentisdenied.

Petitioners in support of their contention that the filing fee must be assessed on the basis of the amended
complaintcitethecaseofMagaspivs.Ramolete.1TheycontendthattheCourtofAppealserredinthatthefilingfeeshouldbeleviedby
consideringtheamountofdamagessoughtintheoriginalcomplaint.

Theenvironmentalfactsofsaidcasedifferfromthepresentinthat

1.TheMagaspicasewasanactionforrecoveryofownershipandpossessionofaparceloflandwithdamages.2
While the present case is an action for torts and damages and specific performance with prayer for temporary restraining
order,etc.3

2.IntheMagaspicase,theprayerinthecomplaintseeksnotonlytheannulmentoftitleofthedefendanttothe
property, the declaration of ownership and delivery of possession thereof to plaintiffs but also asks for the
payment of actual moral, exemplary damages and attorney's fees arising therefrom in the amounts specified
therein.4However,inthepresentcase,theprayerisfortheissuanceofawritofpreliminaryprohibitoryinjunctionduring
thependencyoftheactionagainstthedefendants'announcedforfeitureofthesumofP3Millionpaidbytheplaintiffsforthe
property in question, to attach such property of defendants that maybe sufficient to satisfy any judgment that maybe
rendered, and after hearing, to order defendants to execute a contract of purchase and sale of the subject property and
annul defendants' illegal forfeiture of the money of plaintiff, ordering defendants jointly and severally to pay plaintiff actual,
compensatoryandexemplarydamagesaswellas25%ofsaidamountsasmaybeprovedduringthetrialasattorney'sfees
anddeclaringthetenderofpaymentofthepurchasepriceofplaintiffvalidandproducingtheeffectofpaymentandtomake
theinjunctionpermanent.Theamountofdamagessoughtisnotspecifiedintheprayeralthoughthebodyofthecomplaint
allegesthetotalamountofoverP78Millionasdamagessufferedbyplaintiff.5

3.Uponthefilingofthecomplainttherewasanhonestdifferenceofopinionastothenatureoftheactioninthe
Magaspicase.Thecomplaintwasconsideredasprimarilyanactionforrecoveryofownershipandpossessionof
aparcelofland.Thedamagesstatedweretreatedasmerelytothemaincauseofaction.Thus,thedocketfeeof
onlyP60.00andP10.00forthesheriff'sfeewerepaid.6

Inthepresentcasetherecanbenosuchhonestdifferenceofopinion.Asmaybegleanedfromtheallegationsof
thecomplaintaswellasthedesignationthereof,itisbothanactionfordamagesandspecificperformance.The
docketfeepaiduponfilingofcomplaintintheamountonlyofP410.00byconsideringtheactiontobemerelyone
for specific performance where the amount involved is not capable of pecuniary estimation is obviously

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1987/may1987/gr_75919_1987.html 1/3
11/13/2016 G.R.No.75919

erroneous. Although the total amount of damages sought is not stated in the prayer of the complaint yet it is
spelledoutinthebodyofthecomplainttotallingintheamountofP78,750,000.00whichshouldbethebasisof
assessmentofthefilingfee.

4.WhenthisunderreassessmentofthefilingfeeinthiscasewasbroughttotheattentionofthisCourttogether
with similar other cases an investigation was immediately ordered by the Court. Meanwhile plaintiff through
anothercounselwithleaveofcourtfiledanamendedcomplaintonSeptember12,1985fortheinclusionofPhilips
WireandCableCorporationascoplaintiffandbyemanatinganymentionoftheamountofdamagesinthebody
ofthecomplaint.Theprayerintheoriginalcomplaintwasmaintained.AfterthisCourtissuedanorderonOctober
15, 1985 ordering the re assessment of the docket fee in the present case and other cases that were
investigated,onNovember12,1985thetrialcourtdirectedplaintiffstorectifytheamendedcomplaintbystating
theamountswhichtheyareaskingfor.Itwasonlythenthatplaintiffsspecifiedtheamountofdamagesinthebody
ofthecomplaintinthereducedamountofP10,000,000.00. 7Stillnoamountofdamageswerespecifiedintheprayer.
Saidamendedcomplaintwasadmitted.

Ontheotherhand,intheMagaspicase,thetrialcourtorderedtheplaintiffstopaytheamountofP3,104.00as
filingfeecoveringthedamagesallegedintheoriginalcomplaintasitdidnotconsiderthedamagestobemerely
anorincidentaltotheactionforrecoveryofownershipandpossessionofrealproperty. 8 An amended complaint
wasfiledbyplaintiffwithleaveofcourttoincludethegovernmentoftheRepublicasdefendantandreducingtheamountof
damages,andattorney'sfeesprayedfortoP100,000.00.Saidamendedcomplaintwasalsoadmitted.9

IntheMagaspicase,theactionwasconsiderednotonlyoneforrecoveryofownershipbutalsofordamages,so
thatthefilingfeeforthedamagesshouldbethebasisofassessment.Althoughthepaymentofthedocketingfee
of P60.00 was found to be insufficient, nevertheless, it was held that since the payment was the result of an
"honest difference of opinion as to the correct amount to be paid as docket fee" the court "had acquired
jurisdiction over the case and the proceedings thereafter had were proper and regular." 10 Hence, as the amended
complaintsupersededtheoriginalcomplaint,theallegationsofdamagesintheamendedcomplaintshouldbethebasisofthecomputationofthefilingfee.
11

In the present case no such honest difference of opinion was possible as the allegations of the complaint, the
designationandtheprayershowclearlythatitisanactionfordamagesandspecificperformance.Thedocketing
feeshouldbeassessedbyconsideringtheamountofdamagesasallegedintheoriginalcomplaint.

AsreiteratedintheMagaspicasetheruleiswellsettled"thatacaseisdeemedfiledonlyuponpaymentofthe
docketfeeregardlessoftheactualdateoffilingincourt. 12Thus,inthepresentcasethetrialcourtdidnotacquirejurisdictionover
thecasebythepaymentofonlyP410.00asdocketfee.NeithercantheamendmentofthecomplainttherebyvestjurisdictionupontheCourt.13 For an
legalpurposesthereisnosuchoriginalcomplaintthatwasdulyfiledwhichcouldbeamended.Consequently,theorderadmittingtheamendedcomplaint
andallsubsequentproceedingsandactionstakenbythetrialcourtarenullandvoid.

The Court of Appeals therefore, aptly ruled in the present case that the basis of assessment of the docket fee
shouldbetheamountofdamagessoughtintheoriginalcomplaintandnotintheamendedcomplaint.

TheCourtcannotclosethiscasewithoutmakingtheobservationthatitfrownsatthepracticeofcounselwhofiled
theoriginalcomplaintinthiscaseofomittinganyspecificationoftheamountofdamagesintheprayeralthough
the amount of over P78 million is alleged in the body of the complaint. This is clearly intended for no other
purposethantoevadethepaymentofthecorrectfilingfeesifnottomisleadthedocketclerkintheassessment
ofthefilingfee.Thisfraudulentpracticewascompoundedwhen,evenasthisCourthadtakencognizanceofthe
anomalyandorderedaninvestigation,petitionerthroughanothercounselfiledanamendedcomplaint,deletingall
mentionoftheamountofdamagesbeingaskedforinthebodyofthecomplaint.Itwasonlywheninobedienceto
theorderofthisCourtofOctober18,1985,thetrialcourtdirectedthattheamountofdamagesbespecifiedinthe
amended complaint, that petitioners' counsel wrote the damages sought in the much reduced amount of
P10,000,000.00 in the body of the complaint but not in the prayer thereof. The design to avoid payment of the
requireddocketfeeisobvious.

TheCourtserveswarningthatitwilltakedrasticactionuponarepetitionofthisunethicalpractice.

Toputastoptothisirregularity,henceforthallcomplaints,petitions,answersandothersimilarpleadingsshould
specifytheamountofdamagesbeingprayedfornotonlyinthebodyofthepleadingbutalsointheprayer,and
said damages shall be considered in the assessment of the filing fees in any case. Any pleading that fails to
complywiththisrequirementshallnotbibacceptednoradmitted,orshallotherwisebeexpungedfromtherecord.

The Court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fee. An
amendment of the complaint or similar pleading will not thereby vest jurisdiction in the Court, much less the
payment of the docket fee based on the amounts sought in the amended pleading. The ruling in the Magaspi
case14insofarasitisinconsistentwiththispronouncementisoverturnedandreversed.

WHEREFORE,themotionforreconsiderationisdeniedforlackofmerit.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1987/may1987/gr_75919_1987.html 2/3
11/13/2016 G.R.No.75919

SOORDERED.

Teehankee, C.J., Yap, Fernan, Narvasa, MelencioHerrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Bidin,
SarmientoandCortes,JJ.,concur.

Paras,J.,tooknopart.

Footnotes

1115SCRA193.

2Supra,p.194.

3P.64,Rollo.

4Magaspivs.Ramolete,supra,pp.114115.

5Pp.6566,Rollo.

6Magaspicase,supra,p.194.Pp.

7121122,Rollo.

8Magaspivs.Ramolete,supra,pp.199200.

9Pp.201202,Rollo.

10Supra,115SCRA204205.

11Supra,115SCRA205.

12Supra,115SCRA204,citingMalimitvs.Degamo,G.R.No.L17850,Nov.28,1964,12SCRA450,
120Phil1247Leevs.Republic,L15027,Jan31,1964,10SCRA65.

13Gasparvs.Dorado,L17884,November29,196515SCRA331Tamayovs.SanMiguel
Brewery,G.R.No.L17449,January30,1964Rosariovs.Carandang,96Phil845CamposRueda
Corp.vs.Hon.JudgeBautista,etal.,G.R.No.L18452,Sept.29,1962

14Supra.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1987/may1987/gr_75919_1987.html 3/3