Case Digest (G.R. No. 75919)
Facts:
Manchester Development Corporation, et al., G.R. No. 75919, May 07, 1987, Supreme Court En Banc, Gancayco, J., writing for the Court. The Court acted on petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the Second Division's January 28, 1987 resolution and on their motion to refer the case for en banc hearing; the motion to refer was granted and the motion for oral argument was denied. Padilla, J., took no part because he had been retained counsel of respondent Cityland Development Corporation.Petitioners filed a complaint for torts and damages and for specific performance (with ancillary interim reliefs) that, in the body, alleged damages totaling P78,750,000.00 but did not state any specific amount of damages in the prayer. The docket clerk assessed and petitioners paid a docket fee of P410.00 on the theory that the action was primarily for specific performance and therefore not susceptible to pecuniary estimation; the deficiency was later detected during a Court-ordered investigation into under-assessments of filing fees in several cases.
While the matter was under scrutiny, petitioners — through another counsel and with leave of court — filed an amended complaint (September 12, 1985) adding Philips Wire and Cable Corporation as co-plaintiff and deleting the amount of damages from the body. Following this Court's October 15, 1985 order to re-assess docket fees, the trial court, on November 12, 1985, directed plaintiffs to specify the amounts sought; plaintiffs then stated P10,000,000.00 in the body of the amended complaint, but still did not specify damages in the prayer. The trial court admitted the amended complaint.
The Court of Appeals (Second Division) ruled that the docket fee should be assessed based on the amount of damages alleged in the original complaint, not the amended complaint. Petitioners sought reconsideration before the Court of Appeals and then moved the Supreme...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court acquire jurisdiction over the case despite petitioners' underpayment of the docket fee at filing?
- Should the docket (filing) fee be assessed based on the amount of damages alleged in the original complaint or on the amended complaint?
- Does Magaspi v. Ramolete control the present situation, or should its rule be limited/overruled insofar as inconsistent...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)