This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2011-08-31 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The filing of the complaint or other initiatory pleading and the payment of the prescribed docket fee are the acts that vest a trial court with jurisdiction over the claim.[23] In an action where the reliefs sought are purely for sums of money and damages, the docket fees are assessed on the basis of the aggregate amount being claimed.[24] Ideally, therefore, the complaint or similar pleading must specify the sums of money to be recovered and the damages being sought in order that the clerk of court may be put in a position to compute the correct amount of docket fees. | |||||
|
2011-07-25 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In a Decision dated May 26, 2004, the CA dismissed the petition. The CA found that SC Circular No. 7 would not apply where the amount of damages or value of the property was immaterial; that the Circular could be applied only in cases where the amount claimed or the value of the personal property was determinative of the court's jurisdiction citing the case of Tacay v. RTC of Tagum, Davao del Norte.[16] The CA found that respondents had paid the corresponding docket fees upon the filing of the complaint, thus, the RTC had acquired jurisdiction over the case despite the failure to state the amount of damages claimed in the body of the complaint or in the prayer thereof. The CA found that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it denied petitioner's motion to dismiss. It noted that the RTC's Clarificatory Order dated March 30, 2000, which stated that "if after hearing the Clerk of Court determines that the filing fee is still insufficient, the same shall be considered as lien on the judgment that may be entered" was in accordance with the rule laid down in Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. v. Asuncion.[17] The CA proceeded to state that a judicious examination of the complaint pointed to a determination of the respective rights and interests of the parties over the property based on the issues presented therein which could only be determined in a full-blown trial on the merits of the case. | |||||
|
2008-07-09 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| In Tacay v. Regional Trial Court of Tagum, Davao del Norte,[43] the Court clarified the effect of the Sun Insurance ruling on the Manchester ruling as follows:As will be noted, the requirement in Circular No. 7 [of this Court which was issued based on the Manchester ruling[44]] that complaints, petitions, answers, and similar pleadings should specify the amount of damages being prayed for not only in the body of the pleading but also in the prayer, has not been altered. What has been revised is the rule that subsequent "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 amount sought in the amended pleading," the trial court now being authorized to allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive period or reglementary period. Moreover, a new rule has been added, governing the awards of claims not specified in the pleading - i.e., damages arising after the filing of the complaint or similar pleading - as to which the additional filing fee therefore shall constitute a lien on the judgment. | |||||
|
2008-07-09 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Two situations may arise. One is where the complaint or similar pleading sets out a claim purely for money and damages and there is no statement of the amounts being claimed. In this event the rule is that the pleading will "not be accepted nor admitted, or shall otherwise be expunged from the record." In other words, the complaint or pleading may be dismissed, or the claims as to which amounts are unspecified may be expunged, although as aforestated the Court may, on motion, permit amendment of the complaint and payment of the fees provided the claim has not in the meantime become time-barred. The other is where the pleading does specify the amount of every claim, but the fees paid are insufficient; and here again, the rule now is that the court may allow a reasonable time for the payment of the prescribed fees, or the balance thereof, and upon such payment, the defect is cured and the court may properly take cognizance of the action, unless in the meantime prescription has set in and consequently barred the right of action.[45] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) | |||||
|
2006-04-18 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Subsequently in Tacay v. Regional Trial Court of Tagum, Davao Del Norte,[14] the phrase "awards of claims not specified in the pleading" was clarified to refer only to damages arising after the filing of the complaint or similar pleading.[15] Be that as it may, we find that the court a quo properly acquired jurisdiction over the case. | |||||