Manchester Development v CA

Civil Procedure Payment of Docket Fees Claim Damages should be Stated in the BODY and
PRAYER of pleadings
A complaint for specific performance was filed by Manchester Development Corporation against City
Land Development Corporation to compel the latter to execute a deed of sale in favor Manchester.
Manchester also alleged that City Land forfeited the formers tender of payment for a certain
transaction thereby causing damages to Manchester amounting to P78,750,000.00. This amount
was alleged in the BODY of their Complaint but it was not reiterated in the PRAYER of same
complaint. Manchester paid a docket fee of P410.00 only. Said docket fee is premised on the
allegation of Manchester that their action is primarily for specific performance hence it is incapable of
pecuniary estimation. The court ruled that there is an under assessment of docket fees hence it
ordered Manchester to amend its complaint. Manchester complied but what it did was to lower the
amount of claim for damages to P10M. Said amount was however again not stated in the PRAYER.
ISSUE: Whether or not the amendment complaint should be admitted.
HELD: No. The docket fee, its computation, should be based on the original complaint. A case is
deemed filed only upon payment of the appropriate docket fee regardless of the actual date
of filing in court. Here, since the proper docket fee was not paid for the original complaint, its as if
there is no complaint to speak of. As a consequence, there is no original complaint duly filed which
can be amended. So the any subsequent proceeding taken in consideration of the amended
complaint is void.
Manchesters defense that this case is primarily an action for specific performance is not merited.
The Supreme Court ruled that based on the allegations and the prayer of the complaint, this case is
an action for damages and for specific performance. Hence, it is capable of pecuniary estimation.
Further, the amount for damages in the original complaint was already provided in the body of the
complaint. Its omission in the PRAYER clearly constitutes an attempt to evade the payment of the
proper filing fees. To stop the happenstance of similar irregularities in the future, the Supreme Court
ruled that from this case on, all complaints, petitions, answers and other similar pleadings should
specify the amount of damages being prayed for not only in the body of the pleading but also in the
prayer, and said damages shall be considered in the assessment of the filing fees in any case. Any
pleading that fails to comply with this requirement shall not bib accepted nor admitted, or shall
otherwise be expunged from the record.

Sun Insurance v Asuncion G.R. Nos. 79937-38 February 13, 1989

Facts:
Petitioner Sun Insurance (or SIOL) files a complaint for the annulment of a decision on the
consignation of fire insurance policy. Subsequently, the Private Respondent (PR) files a complaint
for the refund of premiums and the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment in a civil case
against SIOL. In addition, PR also claims for damages, attorneys fees, litigation costs, etc.,

however, the prayer did not state the amount of damages sought although from the body of the
complaint it can be inferred to be in amount of P 50 million. Hence, PR originally paid only PhP
210.00 in docket fees.The complaint underwent a number of amendments to make way for
subsequent re-assessments of the amount of damages sought as well as the corresponding docket
fees. The respondent demonstrated his willingness to abide by the rules by paying the additional
docket fees as required.
Issue: Did the Court acquire jurisdiction over the case even if private respondent did not pay the
correct or sufficient docket fees?
YES.
It was held that it is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading, but the
payment of the prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter
or nature of the action. Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by payment of
the docket fee, the court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in no case
beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglamentary period. Same rule goes for permissive
counterclaims, third party claims and similar pleadings.
In herein case, obviously, there was the intent on the part of PR to defraud the government of the
docket fee due not only in the filing of the original complaint but also in the filing of the second
amended complaint. However, a more liberal interpretation of the rules is called for considering that,
unlike in Manchester, the private respondent demonstrated his willingness to abide by the rules by
paying the additional docket fees as required.
Where a trial court acquires jurisdiction in like manner, but subsequently, the judgment awards a
claim not specified in the pleading, or if specified the same has been left for determination by the
court, the additional filing fee shall constitute a lien on the judgment. It shall be the responsibility of
the Clerk of Court or his duly authorized deputy to enforce said lien and assess and collect the
additional fee.

De Leon vs Court of Appeals, 287 SCRA 94; GR No. 104796, March 6, 1998
(Civil Procedure Jurisdiction, Civil action not capable of pecuniary estimation, Docket Fees)
Facts: Private respondents filed in the RTC of Quezon City a complaint for annulment or rescission of a
contract of sale of two parcels of land against petitioners. Private respondents paid the docket fee of a
flat rate of P400.00 as provided in Rule 141, par 7 (b)(1) of the Rules of Court.
Petitioners moved for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction by the trial
court by reason of private respondents non-payment of the correct amount of docket fees. Petitioners
argue that an action for annulment or rescission of a contract of sale of real property is a real action and,
therefore, the amount of the docket fees to be paid by private respondent should be based either on
the assessed value of the property, subject matter of the action, or its estimated value as alleged in the
complaint, pursuant to the last paragraph of par 7(b) of Rule 141, as amended.

On the other hand, private respondents counter that an action for annulment or rescission of a contract
of sale of real property is incapable of pecuniary estimation and, so, the docket fees should be the fixed
amount of P400.00 in Rule 141, par 7(b)(1).
The trial court denied petitioners motion to dismiss but required private respondents to pay the
amount of docket fees based on the estimated value of the parcels of land in litigation as stated in the
complaint.
The Court of Appeals held that an action for rescission or annulment of contract is not susceptible of
pecuniary estimation and, therefore, the docket fees should not be based on the value of the real
property, subject matter of the contract sought to be annulled or rescinded
Issue: WON in assessing the docket fees to be paid for the filing of an action for annulment or rescission
of a contract of sale, the value of the real property, should be used as basis.
Held: No. The action for annulment or rescission is considered as one which is not capable of pecuniary
estimation.
A review of the jurisprudence of this Court indicates that in determining whether an action is one the
subject matter of which is not capable of pecuniary estimation, this Court has adopted the criterion of
first ascertaining the nature of the principal action or remedy sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of
a sum of money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in
the municipal courts or in the courts of first instance would depend on the amount of the claim.
However, where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money, or where
the money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief sought, like in suits to
have the defendant perform his part of the contract (specific performance) and in actions for support, or
for annulment of a judgment or to foreclose a mortgage, this Court has considered such actions as cases
where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable
exclusively by courts of first instance.

Title: Tokio Marine Malayan Inc. et. al. (Hereon Company) v. Valdez Issue: WON Valdez violated the
prohibition of forum shopping Facts: Valdez filed a case against the company for non-payment of his
commissions and bonuses resulting to breach of contract. He then acquired the status of an indigent
plaintiff from the same court. On December 17, 1998, Valdez manifested before the trial court that he
filed various criminal complaints of estafa against the Company with the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Makati City. The company then filed a motion to dismiss and argues that Valdez engaged in forum
shopping when he filed a subsequent criminal action against the company which he failed to report to
the RTC. The RTC and the CA denied the motion to dismiss. Hence the case. Held: Valdez did not commit
forum shopping. Ratio: We agree with the Court of Appeals that the foregoing certification is a
substantial compliance with Section 5 of Rule 7. Moreover, it should be recalled that respondent
manifested before the trial court on December 16, 1998 that he actually filed criminal cases against
petitioners with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati City. Note:

Gatmaytan v. Court of Appeals describes forum shopping as the act of a litigant who "repetitively availed
of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded
on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially
the same issues either
pending in, or already resolved adversely by some other courtto increase his chances of obtaining a
favorable
decision if not in one court, then in another."
Differently put, it is "the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action,
either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment."
The rationale against forum shopping is that a party should not be allowed to pursue simultaneous
remedies in two different courts as it constitutes abuse of court processes, which tends to degrade the
administration of justice, wreaks havoc upon orderly judicial procedure, and adds to the congestion of
the heavily burdened dockets of the courts.