G.R. No. 75195 - Davao Light and Power Co., Inc. vs. Dinopol

On July 31, 1984, private respondent Abundio T. Merced, doing business as Southern Engineering Works, initiated a civil action for damages with a preliminary mandatory injunction against petitioner Davao Light and Power Co., Inc.
The respondent alleged that the abrupt disconnection of his electric meter by the petitioner caused him moral damages, loss of business and credit standing, and loss of profits.

In the original and amended complaints, aside from specifying attorney’s fees of P20,000.00 and litigation expenses of P5,000.00, the respondent did not detail the principal claims for damages.
As a result, the clerk initially assessed docket fees at only P82.50, based solely on the quantified claims for attorney’s fees and expenses.

During direct examination in hearings on November 22, 1985, and January 24, 1986, the respondent declared the specific amounts of his demands:

On December 11, 1985, and January 27, 1986, petitioner filed a motion and a supplemental motion respectively, seeking additional docket fees based on the total amount of the monetary claims.
Petitioner asserted that under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 and Section 5 of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, the filing fees should be recalculated using a graduated scale, which in this case would mean an additional P35,080.00 as determined by the clerk.

On February 14, 1986, the presiding Judge Cristeto D. Dinopol of RTC Branch XIII denied both motions.
The judge reasoned that the determination of filing fees is fixed at the time the case is filed and noted there was no law mandating the specification of the damages claimed beyond what was originally stated. He also maintained that re-assessment was premature because the trial would eventually determine the validity and quantum of damages. Moreover, the judge mentioned that any monetary judgment rendered would automatically include a lien for the fees.

After a motion for reconsideration filed on February 28, 1986 went unresolved for over four months, petitioner resorted to a petition for certiorari.
The petitioner contended that by failing to enforce the provisions of the Rules of Court regarding docket fee payment based on the total claims, the judge acted beyond his jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion.

The case was viewed in light of the Interim Rules of Court, specifically Rule 11 on the application of the totality rule, which requires that all claims (excluding interest and costs) be considered for jurisdiction and fee assessment.
The Court referenced the Manchester Development Corporation case, which condemned the practice of omitting the specific amount of damages in the complaint to evade proper filing fee payment, and warned of drastic measures against repeat offenses.

The appellate court granted the petition and set aside the February 14, 1986, order.
It directed that the respondent must, within a non-extendible period of five (5) days from notice of the decision, amend his complaint to specify the monetary amount of damages both within the body and the prayer of the pleading; failure to do so would result in dismissal.
The docket clerk was instructed to assess the filing fee based on the aggregate amount of the claim.
Judge Dinopol was admonished to strictly adhere to the guidelines laid down in the Manchester Development Corporation resolution, ensuring proper docket fee assessment in the future.

Whether the refusal of the RTC judge to order the re-assessment of filing fees, based on the aggregate sum of the claimant’s demands, constitutes a grave abuse of discretion.
Whether the failure to specifically allege the total amount of damages in the complaint undermines the jurisdictional determination and proper application of graduated docket fees.
Whether the delay in resolving the motion for reconsideration further exacerbates the procedural irregularities and judicial inaction.