This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-06-22 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Having consistently sought the transfer of possession and control of the properties comprising the Asset Pool over and above the nullification of the Deed of Conveyance in favor of HGC, it follows R-II Builders should have paid the correct and appropriate docket fees, computed according to the assessed value thereof. This much was directed in the 19 May 2008 Order issued by Branch 22 of the Manila RTC which determined that the case is a real action and admitted the Amended and Supplemental Complaint R-II Builders subsequently filed in the case. [11] In obvious evasion of said directive to pay the correct docket fees, however, R-II Builders withdrew its Amended and Supplemental Complaint and, in lieu thereof, filed its Second Amended Complaint which, while deleting its causes of action for accounting and conveyance of title to and/or possession of the entire Asset Pool, nevertheless prayed for its appointment as Receiver of the properties comprising the same. In the landmark case of Manchester Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals, [12] 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. Although it is true that the Manchester Rule does not apply despite insufficient filing fees when there is no intent to defraud the government, [13] R-II Builders' evident bad faith should clearly foreclose the relaxation of said rule. | |||||
|
2008-08-26 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| It may be recalled that despite the payment of insufficient fees, this Court refrained from dismissing the complaint/petition in Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation (IBC-13) v. Alonzo-Legasto,[71] Yambao v. Court of Appeals[72] and Ayala Land, Inc. v. Carpo.[73] In those cases, the inadequate payment was caused by the erroneous assessment made by the Clerk of Court. In Intercontinental,[74] we declared that the payment of the docket fees, as assessed, negates any imputation of bad faith to the respondent or any intent of the latter to defraud the government. Thus, when insufficient filing fees were initially paid by the respondent, and there was no intention to defraud the government, the Manchester rule does not apply. In Yambao,[75] this Court concluded that petitioners cannot be faulted for their failure to pay the required docket fees for, given the prevailing circumstances, such failure was clearly not a dilatory tactic or intended to circumvent the Rules of Court. In Ayala Land,[76] the Court held that despite the jurisdictional nature of the rule on payment of docket fees, the appellate court still has the discretion to relax the rule in meritorious cases. | |||||
|
2008-07-04 |
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. | |||||