8/9/2016

E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

718Phil.698

SECONDDIVISION
[G.R.No.202920,October02,2013]
RICHARDCHUA,PETITIONER,VS.THEEXECUTIVEJUDGE,
METROPOLITANTRIALCOURT,MANILA,RESPONDENT.
DECISION
PEREZ,J.:
AtbenchisaPetitionforReviewonCertiorari,[1]assailingtheOrders[2]dated26June
2012and26July2012oftheExecutiveJudgeoftheMetropolitanTrialCourt(MeTC),
Manila,inUDKNos.12001457to96.
Thefacts:
On13January2012,hereinpetitionerRichardChuatiledbeforetheOfficeoftheCity
Prosecutor(OCP)ofManila,acomplaintchargingoneLettySyGanofforty(40)counts
ofviolationofBatasPambansaBilang(BPBlg.)22ortheBouncingChecksLaw.[3]After
conducting preliminary investigation, the OCP found probable cause and, on 22 March
2012,filedforty(40)countsofviolationofBPBlg.22beforetheMeTC.[4]
Consequently,theMeTCinformedpetitionerthathehastopayatotalofP540,668.00
asfilingfeesforalltheforty(40)countsofviolationofBPBlg.22.[5]Findingthesaid
amount to be beyond his means, petitioner consulted with the MeTC clerk of court to
ask whether he could pay filing fees on a per case basis instead of being required to
pay the total filing fees for all the BP Blg. 22 cases all at once.[6] The MeTC clerk of
court opined that petitioner could not.[7] Petitioner was thus unable to pay any filing
fees.
Due to nonpayment of the required filing fees, the MeTC designated the forty (40)
countsofviolationofBPBlg.22asundocketedcasesunderUDKNos.12001457to96.
Subsequently,theOCPmovedforconsolidationofthesaidcases.[8]
On 18 April 2012, petitioner filed before the Executive Judge of the MeTC a motion
entitled Urgent Motion to Allow Private Complainant to Pay Filing Fee on a Per Case
Basis(UrgentMotion).[9] In it, petitioner reiterated his request that he be allowed to
payfilingfeesonapercasebasisinsteadofbeingrequiredtopaythetotalamountof
filingfeesinitsentirety.
On 26 June 2012, the Executive Judge issued an Order denying petitioners Urgent
Motion. In rebuffing petitioners Urgent Motion, the Executive Judge of the MeTC
http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56287

1/5

8/9/2016

E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

ratiocinatedthatgrantingpetitionerspleawouldconstituteadefermentinthepayment
of filing fees that, in turn, contravenes Section 1(b) of the Rule 111 of the Rules of
Court.[10]
Petitionermovedforreconsideration,buttonoavail.Hence,thisappeal.
OURRULING
Prefatorily, it must be pointed out that petitioner availed of the wrong remedy in
assailingtheOrdersdated26June2012and26July2012oftheExecutiveJudgeofthe
MeTC via the present petition for review on certiorari. The assailed orders are not,
technically, final orders that are appealable,[11] let alone the proper subjects of an
appealbycertiorari.[12]Theassailedordersdonot,atleastforthemoment,completely
disposeoftheB.P.22casesfiledbeforetheMeTC.
Thecorrectremedyforthepetitioner,inviewoftheunavailabilityofanappealorany
otherremedyintheordinarycourseoflaw,isacertioraripetitionunderRule65ofthe
RulesofCourt.[13]Butthenagain,thepetitionershouldhavefiledsuchapetition,not
directlywiththisCourt,butbeforetheappropriateRegionalTrialCourtpursuanttothe
principleofhierarchyofcourts.[14]
In the weightier interest of substantial justice, however, this Court forgives such
procedural lapses and treats the instant appeal as a certiorari petition filed properly
before this Court. To this Court, the grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
ExecutiveJudgewaspatentontheundisputedfactsofthiscaseandisseriousenough
towarrantamomentarydeviationfromtheproceduralnorm.
Thus, We come to the focal issue of whether the Executive Judge of the MeTC
committed grave abuse of discretion, in light of the facts and circumstances herein
obtaining,inrefusingpetitionersrequestofpayingfilingfeesonapercasebasis.
Weanswerintheaffirmative.Wegrantthepetition.
Inproposingtopayfilingfeesonapercasebasis,petitionerwasnottryingtoevadeor
denyhisobligationtopayforthefilingfeesforallforty(40)countsofviolationofBP
Blg. 22 filed before the MeTC. He, in fact, acknowledges such obligation. He, in fact,
admitsthatheisincapableoffulfillingsuchobligationinitsentirety.
Rather, what petitioner is asking is that he at least be allowed to pursue some of the
cases,thefilingfeesofwhichheiscapableoffinancing.Petitionermanifeststhat,given
hiscurrentfinancialstatus,hesimplycannotaffordthefilingfeesforalltheforty(40)
BPBlg.22cases.
Weseenothingwrongorillegalingrantingpetitionersrequest.
First. The Executive Judge erred when she treated the entire P540,668.00 as one
indivisibleobligation,whenthatfigurewasnothingbutthesumofindividualfilingfees
dueforeachcountofviolationofBPBlg.22filedbeforetheMeTC.Grantingpetitioners
http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56287

2/5

8/9/2016

E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

request would not constitute a deferment in the payment of filing fees, for the latter
clearlyintendstopayinfullthefilingfeesofsome,albeitnotall,ofthecasesfiled.
Filing fees, when required, are assessed and become due for each initiatory pleading
filed.[15]Incriminalactions,thesepleadingsrefertotheinformationfiledincourt.
Intheinstantcase,thereareatotalofforty(40)countsofviolationofBPBlg.22that
was filed before the MeTC. And each of the forty (40) was, in fact, assessed its filing
fees, individually, based on the amount of check one covers.[16] Under the rules of
criminalprocedure,thefilingoftheforty(40)countsisequivalenttothefilingofforty
(40) different informations, as each count represents an independent violation of BP
Blg. 22.[17] Filing fees are, therefore, due for each count and may be paid for each
countseparately.
Second. In an effort to justify her refusal of petitioners request, the Executive Judge
further argues that since all forty (40) counts of violation of BP Blg. 22 were brought
about by a single complaint filed before the OCP and are now consolidated before the
court,thepaymentoftheirfilingfeesshouldbemadeforallornoneatall.[18]
Thatallforty(40)countsofviolationofBPBlg.22allemanatedfromasinglecomplaint
filed in the OCP is irrelevant. The fact remains that there are still forty (40) counts of
violation of BP Blg. 22 that were filed before the MeTC and, as a consequence, forty
(40)individualfilingfeestobepaid.
Neither would the consolidation of all forty (40) counts make any difference.
Consolidationunifiescriminalcasesinvolvingrelatedoffensesonlyforpurposesoftrial.
[19]Consolidationdoesnottransformthefilingfeesdueforeachcaseconsolidatedinto

oneindivisiblefee.
Third.Allowingpetitionertopayforthefilingfeesofsome of the forty (40) counts of
violation of BP Blg. 22 filed before the MeTC, will concededly result into the absolute
nonpaymentofthefilingfeesoftherest.Thefateofthecaseswhichfilingfeeswere
notpaid,however,isalreadytheconcernoftheMeTC.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed
Ordersdated26June2012and26July2012oftheExecutiveJudgeoftheMetropolitan
TrialCourt,Manila,inUDKNos.12001457to96areANNULED and SETASIDE. The
MetropolitanTrialCourt,Manila,isherebydirectedtoacceptpaymentsoffilingfeesin
UDKNos.12001457to96onaperinformationbasis.
Nocosts.
SOORDERED.
Carpio,(Chairperson),Brion,DelCastillo,andPerlasBernabe,JJ.,concur.

[1]UnderRule45oftheRulesofCourt.
http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56287

3/5

8/9/2016

E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

[2]Rollo, pp. 2122 and 24. The 26 June 2012 Order was issued by Acting Executive

Judge Ma. Ruby B. Camarista, while the 26 July 2012 Order was issued by Executive
JudgeMarlinaM.Manuel.

[3]ThecomplaintwasdocketedintheOCPasI.S.No.XV07INV12A00329.

[4]Rollo,p.21.

[5]Id.

[6]Id.at5.

[7]Id.

[8]Id.at24.

[9]Id.at21.

[10]Id.at22.Section1(b)ofRule111oftheRulesofCourtprovides:

(b) The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to
includethecorrespondingcivilaction.Noreservationtofilesuchcivilactionseparately
shallbeallowed.

Uponfilingoftheaforesaidjointcriminalandcivilactions,theoffendedpartyshallpay
in full the filing fees based on the amount of the check involved, which shall be
considered as the actual damages claimed. Where the complaint or information also
seeks to recover liquidated, moral, nominal, temperate or exemplary damages, the
offendedpartyshallpayadditionalfilingfeesbasedontheamountsallegedtherein.If
theamountsarenotsoallegedbutanyofthesedamagesaresubsequentlyawardedby
the court, the filing fees based on the amount awarded shall constitute a first lien on
thejudgment.(Emphasissupplied)

Where the civil action has been filed separately and trial thereof has not yet
commenced,itmaybeconsolidatedwiththecriminalactionuponapplicationwiththe
courttryingthelattercase.Iftheapplicationisgranted,thetrialofbothactionsshall
proceed in accordance with section 2 of this Rule governing consolidation of the civil
andcriminalactions.

[11]SeeMirandav.CourtofAppeals,163Phil.285,321322(1976).

[12]Section1,Rule45oftheRulesofCourt.

[13]Section1,Rule65oftheRulesofCourt.

http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56287

4/5

8/9/2016

E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

[14]SeeJumaquiov.Villarosa,G.R.No.165924,19January2009,576SCRA204,209.

[15]SeeSection1ofRule141oftheRulesofCourt.

[16]SeeSection1(b)ofRule111oftheRulesofCourt.SeealsoRollop.55.

[17]SeeSection13,Rule110oftheRulesofCourt.

[18]Rollo,pp.4849.

[19]SeeSection22ofRule119oftheRulesofCourt.

Source:SupremeCourtELibrary
Thispagewasdynamicallygenerated
bytheELibraryContentManagementSystem(ELibCMS)

http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56287

5/5