Case Summary (G.R. No. 140954)
Trial Proceedings and Procedural Challenge
After pleadings and pre-trial, Hinog commenced testimony but died June 24, 1998. His counsel was replaced, and on September 22, 1998 new counsel moved to expunge the complaint and nullify proceedings for failure to specify the amount of damages—hence nonpayment of correct docket fees. An amended motion reiterated that the main cause (recovery of property) was unassessable and no proper docket fee had been paid.
RTC Orders on Docket Fees and Reinstatement
On January 21, 1999 the RTC expunged the complaint and nullified proceedings, but allowed jurisdiction to vest upon payment of the exact docket fees for cause of action and damages. Upon payment on January 28, 1999, private respondents moved for reinstatement. Despite petitioners’ opposition, RTC on March 22, 1999 reinstated the case.
Further Motions and Substitution Issues
Petitioners filed a supplemental pleading (Nov 15, 1982 deed) which was denied July 7, 1999 as new matter waived under Rule 9 § 1 and for lack of formal substitution of parties under Rule 3 § 16. Petitioners then argued the complaint remained expunged and no case existed; RTC denied relief on August 13, 1999. A motion for reconsideration was likewise denied October 15, 1999, with the court noting the relaxation of the Manchester rule in Sun Insurance and directing compliance with substitution requirements. Petitioners later furnished names and addresses of Hinog’s heirs.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether the RTC gravely abused its discretion by reinstating the complaint after expungement for lack of correct docket fees.
- Whether petitioners forfeited their right to challenge the interlocutory reinstatement order by failing to object within the reglementary period.
- Whether new counsel possessed legal personality without formal substitution of the deceased defendant.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
Jurisdictional Hierarchy and Certiorari
The Court emphasized strict observance of judicial hierarchy: direct petitions for certiorari to the Supreme Court against first-level courts require special and compelling reasons, none of which petitioners proved.
Interlocutory Nature of Reinstatement Order
The March 22, 1999 order merely reinstated proceedings and did not dispose of the case on the merits, thus not subject to a reglementary period or appeal. The proper remedy for interlocutory orders is to continue the action and appeal from final judgment, unless the order is patently erroneous or issued with grave abuse of discretion—conditions absent here.
Modification of the Manchester Rule
Under Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. v. Asuncion, nonpayment or underpayment of docket fees does not automatically strip jurisdiction if fees are paid within a reasonable period and there is no fraud. Short-paid fees for unassessed damages become liens on any award. Balane respondents acted in good faith, relied on the clerk’s assessment, and paid the deficiency when notified.
Estoppel and
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 140954)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Petitioners: Heirs of Bertuldo Hinog (Bertuldo Hinog II, III, Jr., Jocelyn, IV, V, Edgardo, Milagros, Lilian, Victoria, Terisita, Paz, Roberto, Vicente, Roel, Marilyn, Bebot, Lordes, Pablo Chiong, Arlene Lanasang), all represented by Bertuldo Hinog III
- Private Respondents: Custodio, Rufo, Honorio, and Tomas Balane
- Public Respondent: Hon. Achilles Melicor, Presiding Judge, RTC Branch 4, Tagbilaran City, Bohol
- Relief Sought: Petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 assailing three RTC orders dated March 22, August 13, and October 15, 1999 in Civil Case No. 4923
Factual Background
- Private respondents own a 1,399 sqm parcel (Lot No. 1714) in Malayo Norte, Cortes, Bohol
- In March 1980 they orally leased a portion to Bertuldo Hinog for ten years at P100/year and allowed him to build a small house
- After ten years they demanded the return of the land and removal of the house; Bertuldo refused and claimed ownership of the entire property
- Private respondents filed for recovery of ownership and possession, removal of construction, damages, attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses (May 21, 1991)
- Bertuldo answered (July 2, 1991), asserting ownership by a Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 2, 1980 executed by Tomas Pahac with private respondents’ knowledge
Trial Proceedings and Change of Counsel
- Pre-trial and trial on the merits ensued; private respondents rested on November 18, 1997
- Bertuldo died June 24, 1998 before completing his evidence
- Original counsel withdrew (Aug. 4, 1998); Atty. Veronico G. Petalcorin entered appearance for Bertuldo’s heirs
Motion to Expunge and Grounds
- Atty. Petalcorin (Sept. 22, 1998) moved to expunge the complaint and nullify proceedings for failure to specify amount of damages and pay