Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SUN INSURANCE OFFICE v. MAXIMIANO C. ASUNCION

This case has been cited 25 times or more.

	GR No. 171582 2015-08-19	ALBERTO T. LASALA v. NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY BRION, J.
Under this situation, Lasala's nonpayment of docket fee for his permissive counterclaim prevented the trial court from acquiring jurisdiction over it. The court may allow payment of such fee but only within a reasonable time and in no case beyond the prescriptive period for the filing of the permissive counterclaim.[52]
	GR No. 165025 2011-08-31	FEDMAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. FEDERICO AGCAOILI 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.
	GR No. 165025 2011-08-31	FEDMAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. FEDERICO AGCAOILI BERSAMIN, J.
In Rivera v. Del Rosario,[29] the Court, resolving the issue of the failure to pay the correct amount of docket fees due to the inadequate assessment by the clerk of court, ruled that jurisdiction over the complaint was still validly acquired upon the full payment of the docket fees assessed by the Clerk of Court. Relying on Sun Insurance Office, Ltd., (SIOL) v. Asuncion,[30] the Court opined that the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading and the payment of the prescribed docket fees vested a trial court with jurisdiction over the claim, and although the docket fees paid were insufficient in relation to the amount of the claim, the clerk of court or his duly authorized deputy retained the responsibility of making a deficiency assessment, and the party filing the action could be required to pay the deficiency, without jurisdiction being automatically lost.
	GR No. 192649 2011-06-22	HOME GUARANTY CORPORATION v. R-II BUILDERS INC. PEREZ, J.
Applying the rule that "a case is deemed filed only upon payment of the docket fee regardless of the actual date of filing in court" in the landmark case of Manchester Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals, this Court ruled that jurisdiction over any case is acquired only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fee which is both mandatory and jurisdictional. To temper said ruling, the Court subsequently issued the following guidelines in Sun Insurance Office, Lid. v. Hon. Maximiano Asuncion,[21] viz: 1. It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading, but the payment of the prescribed docket fee. that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action. Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by payment of the docket fee, the court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable lime but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.
	GR No. 192649 2011-03-09	HOME GUARANTY CORPORATION v. R-II BUILDERS INC. PEREZ, J.
For failure of R-II Builders to pay the correct docket fees for its original complaint or, for that matter, its Amended and Supplemental Complaint as directed in respondent RTC's 19 May 2008 order, it stands to reason that jurisdiction over the case had yet to properly attach. Applying the rule that "a case is deemed filed only upon payment of the docket fee regardless of the actual date of filing in court" in the landmark case of Manchester Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[76] this Court ruled that jurisdiction over any case is acquired only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fee which is both mandatory and jurisdictional. To temper said ruling, the Court subsequently issued the following guidelines in Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. v. Hon. Maximiano Asuncion,[77] viz.: 1. It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading, but the payment of the prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action. Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by payment of the docket fee, the court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.
	GR No. 153690 2011-02-15	DAVID LU v. PATERNO LU YM CARPIO MORALES, J.
The Court has the power and prerogative to suspend its own rules and to exempt a case from their operation if and when justice requires it,[19] as in the present circumstance where movant filed a motion for leave after the prompt submission of a second motion for reconsideration but, nonetheless, still within 15 days from receipt of the last assailed resolution.
	GR No. 184036 2010-10-13	PACIFIC REHOUSE CORPORATION v. EIB SECURITIES VELASCO JR., J.
EIB asserts that the trial court has no jurisdiction over the complaint on account of insufficient dockets fees. Although petitioners paid a total of PhP 120,758.80[15] in legal fees with the RTC, EIB argues that what was paid is based merely on petitioners' prayer for moral damages of PhP 3 million, exemplary damages of PhP 3 million, and attorney's fees of PhP 2 million, but not including petitioners' claim for PhP 4.5 million as actual damages as averred in paragraph 9 of the complaint. Thus, EIB, relying on Manchester Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals[16] (Manchester) and Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. v. Asuncion,[17] maintains that the RTC should not have entertained the case.
	GR No. 164402 2010-07-05	ASUNCION URIETA VDA. DE AGUILAR v. SPS. EDERLINA B. ALFARO AND RAUL ALFARO DEL CASTILLO, J.
Both the trial court and the appellate court considered respondents' counterclaim as a petition for reconveyance. In which case, it should be treated merely as a permissive counterclaim because the evidence required to prove their claim differs from the evidence needed to establish petitioner's demand for recovery of possession. Being a permissive counterclaim, therefore, respondents should have paid the corresponding docket fees.[34] However, there is no proof on record that respondents paid the required docket fees. The official receipts were neither attached to nor annotated on respondents' Answer with Counterclaims and Affirmative Defenses[35] which was filed via registered mail[36] on August 19, 1995. It has been our consistent ruling that it is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading, but the payment of the full amount of the prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action.[37] The same rule applies to permissive counterclaims, third-party claims and similar pleadings, which shall not be considered filed until and unless the filing fee prescribed therefor is paid.[38]
	AM No. 08-2-01-0 2010-02-11	RE: PETITION FOR RECOGNITION OF EXEMPTION OF GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM FROM PAYMENT OF LEGAL FEES. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM CORONA, J.
Clearly, therefore, the payment of legal fees under Rule 141 of the Rules of Court is an integral part of the rules promulgated by this Court pursuant to its rule-making power under Section 5(5), Article VIII of the Constitution. In particular, it is part of the rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure in courts. Indeed, payment of legal (or docket) fees is a jurisdictional requirement.[19] It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading but the payment of the prescribed docket fee that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject-matter or nature of the action.[20] Appellate docket and other lawful fees are required to be paid within the same period for taking an appeal.[21] Payment of docket fees in full within the prescribed period is mandatory for the perfection of an appeal.[22] Without such payment, the appellate court does not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action and the decision sought to be appealed from becomes final and executory.[23]
	GR No. 175914 2009-02-10	RUBY SHELTER BUILDERS v. PABLO C. FORMARAN III CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. (SIOL) v. Asuncion,[29] the Court laid down guidelines for the implementation of its previous pronouncement in Manchester under particular circumstances, to wit: It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading, but the payment of the prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action. Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by payment of the docket fee, the court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.
	GR No. 174975 2009-01-20	LUISA KHO MONTAÑER v. SHARI'A DISTRICT COURT PUNO, C.J.
Filing the appropriate initiatory pleading and the payment of the prescribed docket fees vest a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter.[40] If the party filing the case paid less than the correct amount for the docket fees because that was the amount assessed by the clerk of court, the responsibility of making a deficiency assessment lies with the same clerk of court.[41] In such a case, the lower court concerned will not automatically lose jurisdiction, because of a party's reliance on the clerk of court's insufficient assessment of the docket fees.[42] As "every citizen has the right to assume and trust that a public officer charged by law with certain duties knows his duties and performs them in accordance with law," the party filing the case cannot be penalized with the clerk of court's insufficient assessment.[43] However, the party concerned will be required to pay the deficiency.[44]
	GR No. 179878 2008-12-24	NEGROS ORIENTAL PLANTERS ASSOCIATION v. PRESIDING JUDGE OF RTC-NEGROS OCCIDENTAL CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In denying[15] NOPA's Motion to Dismiss, the RTC cited Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. (SIOL) v. Asuncion,[16] wherein we modified our ruling in Manchester and decreed that where the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by the payment of the docket fee, the court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable period of time, but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. The aforesaid ruling was made on the justification that, unlike in Manchester, the private respondent in Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. (SIOL) demonstrated his willingness to abide by the rules by paying the additional docket fees required. NOPA claims that Sun is not applicable to the case at bar, since Campos deliberately concealed his claim for damages in the prayer.
	GR No. 165147 2008-07-09	PHILIPPINE FIRST INSURANCE CO. v. PYRAMID LOGISTICS CARPIO MORALES, J.
They cited too Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. v. Asuncion[14] which held that "[i]t is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate pleading, but the payment of the prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject-matter or nature of the action."[15]
	GR No. 166802 2008-07-04	SPS. ALBERTO GUTIERREZ v. SPS. ROGELIO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As to the shortage of payment of the docketing fee, the same cannot be used as a ground for dismissing the petition. In Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. v. Asuncion,[44] the Court held that the strict regulations set in Manchester Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals[45] that a court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon payment of the prescribed docket fees does not apply where the party does not deliberately intend to defraud the court in payment of docket fees, and manifests its willingness to abide by the rules by paying additional docket fees when required by the court. The liberal doctrine in Sun Insurance has been repeatedly reiterated in Heirs of Bertuldo Hinog v. Melicor,[46] Proton Pilipinas Corporation v. Banque Nationale de Paris[47] and Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation v. Alonzo-Legasto,[48] and continues to be the controlling doctrine. Since the deficiency in payment was not at all intentional, as there was a willingness to comply with the rules when Spouses Gutierrez remitted the deficiency by postal money order in their Motion for Reconsideration, the Sun Insurance doctrine applies.
	GR No. 155033 2007-12-19	ALICE A.I. SANDEJAS v. SPS. ARTURO IGNACIO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In Sun Insurance Office, Ltd., (SIOL) v. Asuncion,[19] this Court laid down the rules on the payment of filing fees, to wit: It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading, but the payment of the prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject-matter or nature of the action. Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by payment of the docket fee, the court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.
	GR NO. 171532 2007-08-07	UNITED OVERSEAS BANK v. JUDGE REYNALDO ROS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Even granting arguendo that petitioner is not barred from questioning the jurisdiction of the Manila RTC by estoppel, this petition will still fail on the merits. Petitioner's own construction of the doctrine laid down in the cases of Manchester Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[38] and Sun Insurance Office, Ltd., (SIOL) v. Asuncion[39] is skewed.
	GR NO. 138894 2006-07-20	HEIRS OF LATE PRESIDENT FERDINAND E. MARCOS PUNO, J.
There is another reason why the petition must fail. In the case of Sun Insurance Office Ltd. v. Hon. Maximiano Asuncion,[18] the Court en banc laid down the following rules as regards the payment of filing fees: It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading, but [also] the payment of the prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject-matter or nature of the action. Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by payment of the docket fee, the court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.
	GR NO. 169108 2006-04-18	INTERCONTINENTAL BROADCASTING CORPORATION v. ROSE MARIE ALONZO LEGASTO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The aforequoted pronouncement, however, has no application in the instant case. These stringent requirements have been relaxed in the subsequent case of Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. (SIOL) v. Asuncion[13] which laid down the following rules: It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading, but the payment of the prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter or the nature of the action. Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by payment of docket fee, the court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.
	GR NO. 151266 2005-11-29	SPS. RAYMUNDO AND MARILYN CALO v. SPS. REYNALDO AND LYDIA TAN AND DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES TINGA, J.
On 7 November 2001, the appellate court rendered its Decision[30] affirming the trial court's judgment. The Court of Appeals found Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. v. Asuncion[31] to be applicable to the case so that while the additional docket fees were paid late,[32] petitioners however failed to show that such payment was made beyond the prescriptive period. Hence, the trial court was deemed to have acquired jurisdiction over the case. The Court of Appeals did not give much weight to petitioners' contention that the trial court erred in ascribing waiver of their right to present evidence at the hearing on 3 August 1992 since, according to them, their motion for reconsideration was then allegedly pending resolution. The appellate court noted that petitioners were notified of the hearing on said date, as in fact they themselves even chose the date of hearing. Thus, it ruled that petitioners should not have assumed that their motion would be granted.
	ADM MATTER NO. RTJ-04-1848 2005-10-25	PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT v. ROMULO A. LOPEZ AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As held in Valenzuela vs. CA,[19]
	GR NO. 140954 2005-04-12	HEIRS OF BERTULDO HINOG: BERTULDO HINOG II v. ACHILLES MELICOR AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
On August 25, 1999, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration[23] but the same was denied by the trial court in its third assailed Order dated October 15, 1999. The trial court held that the Manchester rule was relaxed in Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. vs. Asuncion.[24] Noting that there has been no substitution of parties following the death of Bertuldo, the trial court directed Atty. Petalcorin to comply with the provisions of Section 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court. The trial court also reiterated that the Order dated March 22, 1999 reinstating the case was not assailed by petitioners within the reglementary period, despite receipt thereof on March 26, 1999.[25]
	GR No. 150241 2004-11-04	EDUARDO S. MERCADO v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
In any event, even if we were to disregard the procedural defects, we find that this petition must still be dismissed as the appellate court did not commit any grave abuse of discretion amounting to want or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the petition for late payment of filing fees. Petitioner undeniably paid his docket fees beyond the reglementary period of 60 days for filing a petition for certiorari. Well settled is the rule that the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case, unless the docket fees are paid.[12] And where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by payment of the docket fees, the court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.[13]
	GR No. 144934 2004-01-15	ADELFA S. RIVERA v. DEL ROSARIO QUISUMBING, J.
RESPONDENTS FAILED TO PAY THE CORRECT DOCKET, FILING AND OTHER LAWFUL FEES WITH THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT OF THE COURT A QUO (RTC, MALOLOS, BULACAN) AT THE TIME OF THE FILING OF THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT IN 1993 PURSUANT TO THE SIOL[29] DOCTRINE.
	GR No. 144934 2004-01-15	ADELFA S. RIVERA v. DEL ROSARIO QUISUMBING, J.
On the first issue, petitioners contend that jurisdiction was not validly acquired because the filing fees respondents paid was only P1,554.45 when the relief sought was reconveyance of land that was worth P2,141,622.50 under the Kasunduan. They contend that respondents should have paid filing fees amounting to P12,183.70. In support of their argument, petitioners invoke the doctrine in Sun Insurance Office, Ltd., (SIOL) v. Asuncion[31] and attach a certification[32] from the Clerk of Court of the RTC of Quezon City.