Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. v. Asuncion

In 1984 Manuel Uy Po Tiong sued Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. (SIOL) in the Quezon City RTC for refund of premiums with a writ of preliminary attachment, later adding E.B. Philipps and D.J. Warby as defendants. The prayer did not quantify damages, though the body of the complaint indicated about P50 million; only P210.00 was paid as docket fee. The case was among those investigated for under-assessment of docket fees. After the Court's October 15, 1985 resolution ordering reassessment, the plaintiff filed a re-amended complaint praying for "not less than P10,000,000.00" (the body alleged about P44.6 million) and paid P39,786.00. He later filed a supplemental complaint adding P20 million and paid P80,396.00. On certiorari, the Court of Appeals upheld the denial of the motion to dismiss and the attachment but ordered reassessment of the fee on a P25,401,707.00 basis; the plaintiff paid a further amount while the case was pending. Petitioners came to the Supreme Court, arguing under Manchester Development Corporation v. CA that the trial court never acquired jurisdiction because the correct fee (about P257,810.49) had not been paid.

1. 1Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the case despite non-payment of the correct docket fees upon filing.
2. 2Whether Manchester Development Corporation v. CA applies to a case filed before it was promulgated.

The petition was dismissed, leaving the case to proceed in the trial court. Manchester applies to the case because "Statutes regulating the procedure of the courts will be construed as applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage." The Court found the same "pattern and the intent to defraud the government of the docket fee" as in Manchester. But unlike the plaintiff in Manchester, who paid no additional fee until the case was decided, private respondent "demonstrated his willingness to abide by the rules by paying the additional docket fees as required," so "a more liberal interpretation of the rules is called for." Any remaining deficiency is for the clerk of court to determine and collect. The Court laid down three rules: (1) "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," but the court may allow payment within a reasonable time "but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period"; (2) the same applies to permissive counterclaims, third-party claims and similar pleadings; (3) where the judgment awards a claim not specified in the pleading, or left for determination by the court, the additional filing fee "shall constitute a lien on the judgment," to be enforced by the clerk of court. The Court dismissed the petition and directed the clerk of court to reassess the fee on the total claims in the original and supplemental complaints and collect any deficiency, without pronouncement as to costs.