Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MANCHESTER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. CA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 190901 2014-11-12	AMADA COTONER-ZACARIAS v. SPS. ALFREDO REVILLA AND HEIRS OF PAZ REVILLA LEONEN, J.
The Court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fee. An amendment of the complaint or similar pleading will not thereby vest jurisdiction in the Court, much less the payment of the docket fee based on the amounts sought in the amended pleading. The ruling in the Magaspi case in so far as it is inconsistent with this pronouncement is overturned and reversed.[57] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR Nos. 154470-71 2012-09-24	BANK OF COMMERCE v. PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK BRION, J.
In the present case, considering the lack of a clear guideline on the payment of docket fee by the claimants in an interpleader suit, compounded by the unusual manner in which the interpleader suit was initiated and the circumstances surrounding it, we surely cannot deduce from the BOC's mere failure to specify in its prayer the total amount of the CB bills it lays claim to (or the value of the subjects of the sales in the April 15 and April 19 transactions, in its alternative prayer) an intention to defraud the government that would warrant the dismissal of its claim.[149]
	GR NO. 163878 2006-12-12	FAR EAST BANK v. VS.SHEMBERG MARKETING CORPORATION SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
A court acquires jurisdiction over a case only upon the payment of the prescribed fees.[9] The importance of filing fees cannot be gainsaid for these are intended to take care of court expenses in the handling of cases in terms of costs of supplies, use of equipment, salaries and fringe benefits of personnel, and others, computed as to man-hours used in the handling of each case.[10] Hence, the non-payment or insufficient payment of docket fees can entail tremendous losses to the government in general and to the judiciary in particular.