PFIC v PYRAMID LOGISTICS FACTS: Pyramid alleged that on November 8, 2000, its delivery van bearing license plate

number PHL-545 hich as loaded ith goods belonging to !ali"ornia #anu"acturing !orporation $!#!% valued at P&0',(4&)0' le"t the !#! *icutan +arehouse but the van, together ith the goods, "ailed to reach its destination and its driver and helper ere no here to be "ound, to its damage and pre,udice) -t "iled a criminal complaint against the driver and the helper "or .uali"ied the"t, and a claim ith herein petitioners as co-insurers o" the lost goods but, in violation o" petitioners/ underta0ing under the insurance policies, they re"used ithout ,ust and valid reasons to compensate it "or the loss) 1espite demands, petitioners allegedly "ailed to settle them, hence, it "iled the complaint sub,ect o" the present petition) Pyramid prayed that a"ter due proceedings, ,udgment be rendered, ordering petitioners to comply ith their obligation under their respective -nsurance Policies by paying it ,ointly and severally, the claims arising "rom the sub,ect losses and that petitioners be ad,udged ,ointly and severally to pay the "ollo ing2
() 3he sum o" PHP 50,000)00 plus PHP (,500)00 "or each !ourt session attended by counsel until the instant 4case5 is "inally terminated, as and "or attorney/s "ees6 2) 3he costs o" suit and "or other relie"s ,ust and e.uitable in the premises) Pyramid as assessed P7(0 doc0et "ee, apparently on the basis o" the amount o" P50,000 speci"ied in the prayer representing attorney/s "ees, hich it duly paid) Pyramid later "iled a (st 8mended !omplaint containing minor changes in its body but bearing the same prayer)

and prayer therein sho that the speci"ic per"ormance sought by private respondent as "or petitioners to 9comply ith their obligation under their respective -nsurance Policies by paying to plainti"" ,ointly and severally, the claims arising "rom the sub,ect losses: as ell as the attorney/s "ees and costs o" suit) =bviously, hat constitutes speci"ic per"ormance is the payment itsel" by petitioners o" private respondent/s claims arising "rom the losses it allegedly incurred) Petitioner "iled #? but as denied) Hence, this petition)

ISSUE: +=N Pyramid paid the correct doc0et "eesA -" in the negative, +=N the complaint shall be dismissed or Pyramid can still be ordered to pay the "ee) HELD: Petition 1BN-B1) Petitioners invo0e the doctrine in #anchester 1evelopment !orporation v) !ourt o" 8ppeals that a pleading hich does not speci"y in the prayer the amount sought shall not be admitted or shall other ise be e;punged, and that the court ac.uires ,urisdiction only upon the payment o" the prescribed doc0et "ee) Pyramid, on the other hand, insists, in its !omment on the Petition, on the application o" @un -nsurance =""ice, Ltd) $@-=L% v) 8suncion and subse.uent rulings rela;ing the #anchester ruling by allo ing payment o" the doc0et "ee ithin a reasonable time, in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period, here the "iling o" the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by the payment o" the prescribed doc0et "ee) 1. Trial Court now being authorized to allow payment of the docket fee within a reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. -n 3acay v) ?egional 3rial !ourt o" 3agum, 1avao del Norte, the !ourt clari"ied the e""ect o" the @un -nsurance ruling on the #anchester ruling as "ollo s2 8s ill be noted, the re.uirement in !ircular No) ' 4o" this !ourt hich as issued based on the #anchester ruling that complaints, petitions, ans ers, and similar pleadings should speci"y the amount o" damages being prayed "or not only in the body o" the pleading but also in the prayer, has not been altered) What has been revised is the rule that subsequent 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 amount sought in the amended pleading, the trial court now being authorized to allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive period or reglementary period !oreover, a new rule has been added, governing the awards of claims not specified in the pleading " i e , damages arising after the filing of the complaint or similar pleading " as to which the additional filing fee therefore shall constitute a lien on the judgment 2. The rule now is that the court may allow a reasonable time for the payment of the prescribed fees, or the balance thereof, and upon such payment, the defect is cured and the court may properly take cognizance of the action, unless in the meantime prescription has set in and consequently barred the right of action. . !t is the duty of the parties claiming such damages to specify the amount sought on the

Petitioners "iled a #otion to 1ismiss on the ground o", inter alia, lac0 o" ,urisdiction, Pyramid not having paid the doc0et "ees in "ull, arguing that in the body o" the 8mended !omplaint, Pyramid alleged that the goods belonging to !ali"ornia #anu"acturing !o), -nc) $!#!% is 9valued at Php&0',(4&)0': and conse.uently, 9incurred e;penses, su""ered damages and as constrained to engage the services o" counsel to en"orce and protect its right to recover compensation under the said policies and "or hich services, it obligated itsel" to pay the sum e.uivalent to t enty-"ive $25<% o" any recovery in the instant action, as and "or attorney/s "ees and legal e;penses) =n the other hand, in the prayer in the !omplaint, Pyramid deliberately omitted to speci"y hat these damages are) >erily, this deliberate omission by the plainti"" is clearly intended "or no other purposes than to evade the payment o" the correct "iling "ee i" not to mislead the doc0et cler0, in the assessment o" the "iling "ee) -n "act, the doc0et cler0 in the instant case charged the plainti"" a total o" Php7(0)00 only as a "iling "ee, hich she must have based on the amount o" Php50,000)00 attorney/s "ees only) Hence, the #3! should have ,urisdiction over the case) 3he !ourt denied #31) #? as "iled but as denied) Petition "or certiorari as "iled to !8, and it as partially granted and ordered Pyramid to "ile the correct doc0et "ees ithin a reasonable period o" time) 3he !8, thus, e;plained that hile the captions o" the complaint and (st amended complaint denominated the case as one "or 9@peci"ic Per"ormance and 1amages:, the allegations

basis of which the court may make a proper determination, and for the proper assessment of the appropriate docket fee. "#ception is limited only to any damages that may arise after the filing of the complaint or similar pleading. +hile it is true that the determination o" certain damages is le"t to the sound discretion o" the court, it is the duty o" the parties claiming such damages to speci"y the amount sought on the basis o" hich the court may ma0e a proper determination, and "or the proper assessment o" the appropriate doc0et "ees) 3he e;ception contemplated as to claims not speci"ied or to claims although speci"ied are le"t "or determination o" the court is limited only to any damages that may arise a"ter the "iling o" the complaint or similar pleading "or then it ill not be possible "or the claimant to speci"y nor speculate as to the amount thereo") Pyramid/s ,usti"ication "or omitting to speci"y in the prayer o" its complaint the amount o" its claimsCdamages, "ails to impress)