1. SUSON vs. CA 2. MANCHESTER DEVELOPMENT vs.

CA Court of Appeals (1997) Civil Procedure Payment of Docket Fees Claim Damages should be Stated in the BODY and PRAYER of pleadings FACTS: A complaint for specific performance was filed by Manchester Development Corporation against City Land Development Corporation to compel the latter to execute a deed of sale in favor Manchester. Manchester also alleged that City Land forfeited the formers tender of payment for a certain transaction thereby causing damages to Manchester amounting to P78,750,000.00. This amount was alleged in the BODY of their Complaint but it was not reiterated in the PRAYER of same complaint. Manchester paid a docket fee of P410.00 only. Said docket fee is premised on the allegation of Manchester that their action is primarily for specific performance hence it is incapable of pecuniary estimation. The court ruled that there is an under assessment of docket fees hence it ordered Manchester to amend its complaint. Manchester complied but what it did was to lower the amount of claim for damages to P10M. Said amount was however again not stated in the PRAYER. ISSUE: Whether or not the amendment complaint should be admitted. HELD: No. The docket fee, its computation, should be based on the original complaint. A case is deemed filed only upon payment of the appropriate docket fee regardless of the actual date of filing in court. Here, since the proper docket fee was not paid for the original complaint, its as if there is no complaint to spe ak of. As a consequence, there is no original complaint duly filed which can be amended. So the any subsequent proceeding taken in consideration of the amended complaint is void. Manchesters defense that this case is primarily an action for specific performance is not merited. The Supreme Court ruled that based on the allegations and the prayer of the complaint, this case is an action for damages and for specific performance. Hence, it is capable of pecuniary estimation. Further, the amount for damages in the original complaint was already provided in the body of the complaint. Its omission in the PRAYER clearly constitutes an attempt to evade the payment of the proper filing fees. To stop the happenstance of similar irregularities in the future, the Supreme Court ruled that from this case on, all complaints, petitions, answers and other similar pleadings should specify the amount of damages being prayed for not only in the body of the pleading but also in the prayer, and said damages shall be considered in the assessment of the filing fees in any case. Any pleading that fails to comply with this requirement shall not bib accepted nor admitted, or shall otherwise be expunged from the record. 3. MIJARES vs. RANADA (2005) 4. DO-ALL METALS vs. SECURITY BANK (2011) JUSTICE ROBERTO ABAD: A SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT IS LIKE ANY COMPLAINT AND THE RULE IS THAT THE FILING FEES DUE ON A COMPLAINT NEED TO BE PAID UPON ITS FILING In Do-ALL Metals Industries vs. Security Bank , the Supreme Court observed that what the plaintiffs failed to pay merely was the filing fees for their supplemental complaint. Thus, the RTC acquired jurisdiction over plaintiffs action from the moment they filed their original complaint accompanied by the payment of the filing fees due on the same. In other words, the plaintiffs non-payment of the additional filing fees due on their additional claims did not divest the RTC of the jurisdiction it already had over the case (PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 358 Phil. 38, 62 (1998). x x x x x However, as to the damages that plaintiffs claim under their supplemental complaint, their stand that the RTC committed no error in admitting the complaint even if they had not paid the filing fees due on it since such fees constituted a lien anyway on the judgment award is not correct. The Supreme Court clarified that the after-judgment lien, which implies that payment depends on a successful execution of the judgment, applies to cases where the filing fees were incorrectly assessed or paid or where the court has discretion to fix the amount of the award. (Rules of Court, Rule 141, Section 2 (Fees in Lien). None of these circumstances obtain in the case.

Here, the supplemental complaint specified from the beginning the actual damages that the plaintiffs sought against the Bank. Still plaintiffs paid no filing fees on the same. And, while petitioners claim that they were willing to pay the additional fees, they gave no reason for their omission nor offered to pay the same. They mer ely said that they did not yet pay the fees because the RTC had not assessed them for it. But a supplemental complaint is like any complaint and the rule is that the filing fees due on a complaint need to be paid upon its filing. (Section 1 (Payment of Fees) in relation to Section 7 (Fees collectible by the Clerks of Regional Trial Courts for filing an action). The rules do not require the court to make special assessments in cases of supplemental complaints. To aggravate plaintiffs o mission, although the Bank brought up the question of their failure to pay additional filing fees in its motion for reconsideration, plaintiffs made no effort to make at least a late payment before the case could be submitted for decision, assuming of course that the prescription of their action had not then set it in. Clearly, plaintiffs have no excuse for their continuous failure to pay the fees they owed the court. Consequently, the trial court should have treated their Supplemental Complaint as not filed. x x x x Plaintiffs of course point out that the Bank itself raised the issue of non-payment of additional filing fees only after the RTC had rendered its decision in the case. The implication is that the Bank should be deemed to have waived its objection to such omission. But it is not for a party to the case or even for the trial court to waive the payment of the additional filing fees due on the supplemental complaint. Only the Supreme Court can grant exemptions to the payment of the fees due the courts and these exemptions are embodied in its rules (DO-ALL METALS INDUSTRIES VS. SECURITY BANK CORPORATION, G.R. NO. 176339, JANUARY 10, 2011, ABAD, J.).

5. BENGUET ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. vs. CA (1999)