Sun Insurance Office, Ltd., (SIOL), et al., v. Hon. Maximiano C.

Asuncion, et
al.
G.R. Nos. 79937-38, February 13, 1989
FACTS:
Petitioner Sun Insurance Office filed a complaint for the consignation of a
premium refund on a fire insurance policy with a prayer for the judicial declaration
of its nullity against private respondent Manuel Uy Po Tiong. Private respondent
was declared in default for failure to file the required answer within the
reglementary period. On the other hand, private respondent filed a complaint for
the refund of premiums and the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment
against petitioner.
Although the prayer in the complaint did not quantify the amount of
damages sought said amount may be inferred from the body of the complaint to be
about Fifty Million Pesos. Only the amount of P21O.OO was paid by private
respondent as docket fee which prompted petitioners' counsel to raise his objection,
which was disregarded by respondent Judge. The Court thereafter returned the said
records to the trial court with the directive that they be re-raffled to the other
judges to the exclusion of Judge Castro. The Court issued a Resolution directing
the judges to reassess the docket fees and requires all clerks of court to issue
certificates of re-assessment of docket fees. All litigants were likewise required to
specify in their pleadings the amount sought to be recovered. Judge Maximiano
Asuncion, to whom Civil Case was thereafter assigned, issued an Order requiring
the parties in the case to comment on the Clerk of Court's letter-report.
Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals
questioning the said order of Judge Asuncion. Court of Appeals rendered a
decision ruling, among others, Denying due course to the petition insofar as it
seeks annulment of the order.
During the pendency of this petition and in conformity with the said
judgment of respondent court, private respondent paid the additional docket fee of
P62,432.90 on April 28, 1988. 
ISSUE:
Whether or not the ruling in Manchester is applicable in this case, hence the
CA erred in finding that the lower court acquired jurisdiction over the case because
of non-payment of proper docket fee. (NO)
RULING:
The main thrust of the petition is that the Court of Appeals erred in not
finding that the lower court did not acquire jurisdiction over Civil Case No. Q-
41177 on the ground of nonpayment of the correct and proper docket fee.
Petitioners allege that while it may be true that private respondent had paid the
amount of P182,824.90 as docket fee as herein-above related, and considering that
the total amount sought to be recovered in the amended and supplemental
complaint is P64,601,623.70 the docket fee that should be paid by private
respondent is P257,810.49, more or less. Not having paid the same, petitioners
contend that the complaint should be dismissed and all incidents arising therefrom
should be annulled. In support of their theory, petitioners cite the latest ruling of
the Court in Manchester Development Corporation vs. CA, as follows:
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 Case in so far as it is inconsistent with this pronouncement is
overturned and reversed.
The contention that Manchester cannot apply retroactively to this case is
untenable. Statutes regulating the procedure of the courts will be construed as
applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage.
Procedural laws are retrospective in that sense and to that extent. 
Upon the filing of the complaint, the plaintiff paid the amount of only
P410.00 for the docket fee based on the nature of the action for specific
performance where the amount involved is not capable of pecuniary estimation.
However, it was obvious from the allegations of the complaint as well as its
designation that the action was one for damages and specific performance. Thus,
this court held the plaintiff must be assessed the correct docket fee computed
against the amount of damages of about P78 Million, although the same was not
spelled out in the prayer of the complaint.
The principle in Manchester could very well be applied in the present case.
The pattern and the intent to defraud the government of the docket fee due it is
obvious not only in the filing of the original complaint but also in the filing of the
second amended complaint.
However, in Manchester, petitioner did not pay any additional docket fee
until] the case was decided by this Court on May 7, 1987. Thus, in Manchester,
due to the fraud committed on the government, this Court held that the court a
quo did not acquire jurisdiction over the case and that the amended complaint
could not have been admitted inasmuch as the original complaint was null and
void.
In the present case, a more liberal interpretation of the rules is called for
considering that, unlike Manchester, private respondent demonstrated his
willingness to abide by the rules by paying the additional docket fees as required.
The promulgation of the decision in Manchester must have had that sobering
influence on private respondent who thus paid the additional docket fee as ordered
by the respondent court. It triggered his change of stance by manifesting his
willingness to pay such additional docket fee as may be ordered.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Clerk of
Court of the court a quo is hereby instructed to reassess and determine the
additional filing fee that should be paid by private respondent considering the total
amount of the claim sought in the original complaint and the supplemental
complaint as may be gleaned from the allegations and the prayer thereof and to
require private respondent to pay the deficiency, if any, without pronouncement as
to costs.