G.R. No. 126749 - Suson vs. Court of Appeals

On November 15, 1993, private respondent David S. Odilao, Jr. filed a civil suit for damages amounting to P5.15 million against petitioner Eriberto M. Suson before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Juan (Branch 26), Southern Leyte.
The complaint arose from allegations made by Suson accusing Odilao of making false accusations of graft and corruption before the Office of the Ombudsman, which subsequently led to an adverse publication in a Cebu-based newspaper under the headline "ODILAO SUED FOR GRAFT."
Odilao claimed that these allegations tarnished his reputation, causing dishonor, discredit, moral shock, and social humiliation.
Odilao paid a total docket fee of P25,600.00 composed of two official receipts: P15,450.00 and P10,150.00, both dated November 15, 1993.

On December 17, 1993, petitioner Suson filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of improper venue, contending that Odilao resided in Talisay, Cebu and not in Himonganan, Southern Leyte.
The RTC of Southern Leyte (Branch 26) granted the motion to dismiss on May 24, 1994, thereby dismissing the original complaint on venue grounds.

Following the dismissal, Odilao re-filed the same complaint (with the sole exception of the statement regarding his actual residence) at the RTC of Cebu City (Branch 6).
Upon re-filing, Odilao presented the official receipts from the RTC (Branch 26) as proof of payment of docket fees.
The clerk of court of RTC Cebu City (Branch 6) advised Odilao’s counsel to file a formal request with the Supreme Court through the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) to have the fees from the earlier case applied to the new filing.
On June 20, 1994, Odilao, through counsel, sent a letter to the Supreme Court Deputy Court Administrator requesting authorization to use the previously paid filing fees for his complaint in Cebu City.

On July 12, 1994, Deputy Court Administrator Bernardo P. Abesamis replied, instructing that Odilao could re-file in RTC Cebu City and use the official receipt corresponding to the fees paid at RTC Branch 26 as payment for the filing fees.
Based on this reply, the RTC Cebu City clerk docketed the complaint as Civil Case No. CEB-16336 without requiring a new payment of the docket fee.

On September 13, 1994, petitioner Suson filed a motion to dismiss the re-filed Civil Case No. CEB-16336 on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and lack of cause of action, arguing that no new filing fee had been paid.
The RTC Cebu City (Branch 6) denied the motion on September 16, 1994, ruling that the application of fees was validated by the letter from the Deputy Court Administrator.
The petitioner elevated the case via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, contesting the Deputy Court Administrator’s authority and the re-application of the filing fee, which had been paid earlier in the dismissed case.

Whether a party whose complaint was dismissed for improper venue is entitled to seek authorization from the Supreme Court, through the Deputy Court Administrator, to re-file the complaint in the proper venue without re-paying the prescribed docket fee.

Does the re-filing in a different court (RTC Cebu City) constitute an entirely distinct case from the dismissed case in RTC Southern Leyte?
Is the authority of the Deputy Court Administrator applicable to exempt the requirement of paying the docket fee when re-filing in a different venue?