UDK No. 16838 - Nepomuceno vs. Duterte

On 13 January 2012, petitioner Richard Chua filed a complaint before the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) of Manila, charging one Letty Sy Gan with forty (40) counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (the Bouncing Checks Law).
Following a preliminary investigation that established probable cause, the OCP filed the forty counts before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) on 22 March 2012.

The MeTC informed petitioner that the total filing fees for all forty counts amounted to P540,668.00.
Petitioner, finding the total fee beyond his financial capacity, consulted with the MeTC clerk of court regarding the possibility of paying the filing fees on a per-case basis instead of paying the entire amount at once.
The clerk opined that such an arrangement was not permissible, leaving petitioner unable to pay any filing fees.

Due to the non-payment of filing fees, the forty counts were designated as undocketed matters under UDK Nos. 12001457 to 96.
The OCP subsequently moved for consolidation of the cases.
On 18 April 2012, petitioner filed an Urgent Motion before the Executive Judge of the MeTC, seeking permission to pay filing fees on a per-case basis.

On 26 June 2012, the Executive Judge denied the Urgent Motion, reasoning that allowing such payment would amount to a deferment in the payment of filing fees, in contravention of Section 1(b) of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was ultimately unsuccessful, prompting the present appeal.
Although the appeal was initially brought as a Petition for Review on Certiorari, it was noted that the proper remedy should have been a certiorari petition under Rule 65 filed with the appropriate Regional Trial Court.

Whether petitioner committed a procedural error by filing a Petition for Review on Certiorari when the Orders challenged were not final or immediately appealable.
Whether the appropriate remedy should have been a certiorari petition under Rule 65, filed first with the appropriate Regional Trial Court, considering the principle of hierarchy of courts.

Whether the Executive Judge of the MeTC acted with grave abuse of discretion by refusing petitioner’s request to pay filing fees on a per-case basis.
Whether the interpretation of the filing fee obligation—treating the sum of P540,668.00 as an indivisible whole rather than as a compilation of individual fees per each of the forty counts—was erroneous.
Whether the consolidation of the cases affected the independent nature of the filing fee obligation.