11/13/2016 ProtonCorpvsBanqueNationale:151242:June15,2005:J.

CarpioMorales:ThirdDivision:Decision

THIRDDIVISION


PROTON PILIPINAS G.R.No.151242
CORPORATION, AUTOMOTIVE
PHILIPPINES, ASEA ONE Present:
CORPORATIONandAUTOCORP,
Petitioners, PANGANIBAN,J.,Chairman,
SANDOVALGUTIERREZ,
CORONA,
versus CARPIOMORALES,and
GARCIA,JJ.


BANQUENATIONALEDEPARIS,
[1]
Respondent. Promulgated:

June15,2005
xx

DECISION


CARPIOMORALES,J.:


Itappearsthatsometimein1995,petitionerProtonPilipinasCorporation(Proton)availedofthe
credit facilities of herein respondent, Banque Nationale de Paris (BNP). To guarantee the
paymentofitsobligation,itscopetitionersAutomotiveCorporationPhilippines(Automotive),
Asea One Corporation (Asea) and Autocorp Group (Autocorp) executed a corporate
[2]
guarantee totheextentofUS$2,000,000.00.BNPandProtonsubsequentlyenteredintothree
[3] [4] [5]
trustreceiptagreementsdatedJune4,1996, January14,1997, andApril24,1997.

Underthetermsofthetrustreceiptagreements,Protonwouldreceiveimportedpassengermotor
vehiclesandholdthemintrustforBNP.Protonwouldbefreetosellthevehiclessubjecttothe
conditionthatitwoulddelivertheproceedsofthesaletoBNP,tobeappliedtoitsobligationsto
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/151242.htm 1/16
11/13/2016 ProtonCorpvsBanqueNationale:151242:June15,2005:J.CarpioMorales:ThirdDivision:Decision

it. In case the vehicles are not sold, Proton would return them to BNP, together with all the
accompanyingdocumentsoftitle.

Allegedly,Protonfailedtodelivertheproceedsofthesaleandreturntheunsoldmotorvehicles.

Pursuanttothecorporateguarantee,BNPdemandedfromAutomotive,AseaandAutocorpthe
[6]
payment of the amount of US$1,544,984.40 representing Protons total outstanding
obligations.Theseguarantorsrefusedtopay,however.Hence,BNPfiledonSeptember7,1998
beforetheMakatiRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)acomplaintagainstpetitionersprayingthatthey
beorderedtopay(1)US$1,544,984.40plusaccruedinterestandotherrelatedchargesthereon
subsequenttoAugust15,1998untilfullypaidand(2)anamountequivalentto5%ofallsums
duefrompetitionersasattorneysfees.
[7]
The Makati RTC Clerk of Court assessed the docket fees which BNP paid at P352,116.30
[8]
whichwascomputedasfollows:

FirstCauseofAction $844,674.07
SecondCauseofAction 171,120.53
ThirdCauseofAction 529,189.80
$1,544,984.40
5%asAttorney'sFees $77,249.22
TOTAL.. $1,622,233.62
Conversionratetopeso x43_
TOTAL.. P69,756,000.00(roundoff)

ComputationbasedonRule141:

COURT JDF

P69,756,000.00 P69.606.000.00
150,000.00 x.003
69,606,000.00 208,818.00
x.002 +450.00
139,212.00 P209,268.00
+150.00
P139,362.00

LEGAL:P139,362.00
+209,268.00
P348,630.00x1%=P3,486.30

P139,362.00
+209,268.00
3,486.00
P352,116.30Totalfeespaidbytheplaintiff

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/151242.htm 2/16
11/13/2016 ProtonCorpvsBanqueNationale:151242:June15,2005:J.CarpioMorales:ThirdDivision:Decision

To the complaint, the defendantsherein petitioners filed on October 12, 1998 a Motion to
[9]
Dismiss onthegroundthatBNPfailedtopaythecorrectdocketfeestothuspreventthetrial
[10]
court from acquiring jurisdiction over the case. As additional ground, petitioners raised
[11]
prematurityofthecomplaint,BNPnothavingpriorlysentanydemandletter.
[12]
ByOrder ofAugust3,1999,Branch148oftheMakatiRTCdeniedpetitionersMotionto
Dismiss,viz:

Resolvingthefirstgroundrelieduponbythedefendant,thiscourtbelievesandsohold
thatthedocketfeeswereproperlypaid.ItistheOfficeoftheClerkofCourtofthisstationthat
computes the correct docket fees, and it is their duty to assess the docket fees correctly, which
theydid.

Evengrantingarguendothatthedocketfeeswerenotproperlypaid,thecourtcannotjust
dismissthecase.TheCourthasnotyetordered(anditwillnotinthiscase)to pay the correct
docketfees,thustheMotiontodismissispremature,asidefrombeingwithoutanylegalbasis.

AsheldinthecaseofNationalSteelCorporationvs.CA,G.R.No.123215,February2,
1999,theSupremeCourtsaid:

xxx

Although the payment of the proper docket fees is a jurisdictional
requirement, the trial court may allow the plaintiff in an action to pay the same
within a reasonable time within the expiration of applicable prescription or
reglementary period. If the plaintiff fails to comply with this requirement, the
defendant should timely raise the issue of jurisdiction or else he would be
consideredinestoppel.Inthelattercase,thebalancebetweenappropriatedocket
feesandtheamountactuallypaidbytheplaintiffwillbeconsideredalienor(sic)
anyawardhemayobtaininhisfavor.

Astothesecondgroundrelieduponbythedefendants,inthatareviewofallannexesto
thecomplaintoftheplaintiffrevealsthatthereisnotasingleformaldemandletterfordefendants
tofulfillthetermsandconditionsofthethree(3)trustagreements.

Inthisregard,thecourtcannotsustainthesubmissionofdefendant.Ascorrectlypointed
out by the plaintiff, failure to make a formal demand for the debtor to pay the plaintiff is not
amongthelegalgroundsforthedismissalofthecase.Anyway,intheappreciationofthecourt,
thisissimplyevidentiary.

xxx

WHEREFORE,forlackofmerit,theMotiontoDismissinterposedbythedefendantsis
[13]
herebyDENIED. (Underscoringsupplied)

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/151242.htm 3/16
11/13/2016 ProtonCorpvsBanqueNationale:151242:June15,2005:J.CarpioMorales:ThirdDivision:Decision

[14]
Petitionersfiledamotionforreconsideration ofthedenialoftheirMotiontoDismiss,butit
[15]
wasdeniedbythetrialcourtbyOrder ofOctober3,2000.

[16]
Petitionersthereuponbroughtthecaseoncertiorariandmandamus totheCourtofAppeals
[17]
which,byDecision ofJuly25,2001,denieditinthiswise:

Section 7(a) of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court excludes interest accruing from the principal
amount being claimed in the pleading in the computation of the prescribed filing fees. The
complaintwassubmittedforthecomputationofthefilingfeetotheOfficeoftheClerkofCourt
of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City which made an assessment that respondent paid
accordingly.WhattheOfficeoftheClerkofCourtdidandtherulingoftherespondentJudgefind
support in the decisions of the Supreme Court in Ng Soon vs. Alday and Tacay vs. RTC of
Tagum, Davao del Norte. In the latter case, the Supreme Court explicitly ruled that where the
actionispurelyforrecoveryofmoneyordamages,thedocketfeesareassessedonthebasisof
theaggregateamountclaimed,exclusiveonlyofinterestsandcosts.

Assumingarguendothatthecorrectfilingfeeswasnotmade,theruleisthatthecourtmayallow
areasonabletimeforthepaymentoftheprescribedfees,orthebalancethereof,anduponsuch
payment,thedefectiscuredandthecourtmayproperlytakecognizanceoftheactionunlessin
themeantimeprescriptionhassetinandconsequentlybarredtherightofaction.Hererespondent
Judgedidnotmakeanyfinding,andrightlyso,thatthefilingfeepaidbyprivaterespondentwas
insufficient.

Ontheissueofthecorrectdollarpesorateofexchange,theOfficeoftheClerkofCourtofthe
RTCofMakatipeggeditatP43.21toUS$1.Intheabsenceofanyofficeguideoftherateof
exchange which said court functionary was duty bound to follow, the rate he applied is
presumptivelycorrect.

Respondent Judge correctly ruled that the matter of demand letter is evidentiary and does not
formpartoftherequiredallegationsinacomplaint.Section1,Rule8ofthe1997RulesofCivil
Procedurepertinentlyprovides:

Every pleading shall contain in a methodical and logical form, a plain,
concise and direct statement of the ultimate facts on which the party pleading
reliesforhisclaimordefense,asthecasemaybe,omittedthestatementofmere
evidentiaryfacts.

Judging from the allegations of the complaint particularly paragraphs 6, 12, 18, and 23
whereallegationsofimputeddemandsweremadeuponthedefendantstofulfilltheirrespective
obligations,annexingthedemandlettersforthepurposeofputtingupasufficientcauseofaction
isnotrequired.

In fine, respondent Judge committed no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
[18]
excessofjurisdictiontowarrantcertiorariandmandamus. (Underscoringsupplied)


http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/151242.htm 4/16
11/13/2016 ProtonCorpvsBanqueNationale:151242:June15,2005:J.CarpioMorales:ThirdDivision:Decision

[19] [20]
Their Motion for Reconsideration having been denied by the Court of Appeals,
[21]
petitioners filed the present petition for review on certiorari and pray for the following
reliefs:

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable
Court to grant the instant petition by REVERSING and SETTING ASIDE the questioned
DecisionofJuly25,2001andtheResolutionofDecember18,2001forbeingcontrarytolaw,to
AdministrativeCircularNo.1194andCircularNo.7andinsteaddirectthecourtaquotorequire
PrivateRespondentBanquetopaythecorrectdocketfeepursuanttothecorrectexchangerateof
the dollar to the peso on September 7, 1998 and to quantify its claims for interests on the
principalobligationsinthefirst,secondandthirdcausesofactionsinitsComplaintinCivilCase
[22]
No.982180. (Underscoringsupplied)



[23]
CitingAdministrativeCircularNo.1194, petitionersarguethatBNPfailedtopaythe
correctdocketfeesasthesaidcircularprovidesthatintheassessmentthereof,interestclaimed
shouldbeincluded.Therebeinganunderpaymentofthedocketfees,petitionersconclude,the
trialcourtdidnotacquirejurisdictionoverthecase.

Additionally,petitionerspointoutthattheclerkofcourt,inconvertingBNPsclaimsfromUS
dollarstoPhilippinepesos,appliedthewrongexchangerateofUS$1=P43.00,theexchange
rateonSeptember7,1998whenthecomplaintwasfiledhavingbeenpeggedatUS$1=P43.21.
Thus, by petitioners computation, BNPs claim as of August 15, 1998 was actually
[24]
P70,096,714.72, notP69,756,045.66.

[25]
Furthermore, petitioners submit that pursuant to Supreme Court Circular No. 7, the
complaintshouldhavebeendismissedforfailuretospecifytheamountofinterestintheprayer.

CircularNo.7reads:

TO:JUDGESANDCLERKSOFCOURTOFTHECOURTOFTAXAPPEALS,REGIONAL
TRIAL COURTS, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES, MUNICIPAL
TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS, SHARIA DISTRICT
COURTSANDTHEINTEGRATEDBAROFTHEPHILIPPINES
SUBJECT: ALL COMPLAINTS MUST SPECIFY AMOUNT OF DAMAGES SOUGHT
NOTONLYINTHEBODYOFTHEPLEADING,BUTALSOINTHEPRAYERIN
ORDERTOBEACCEPTEDANDADMITTEDFORFILING.THEAMOUNTOF

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/151242.htm 5/16
11/13/2016 ProtonCorpvsBanqueNationale:151242:June15,2005:J.CarpioMorales:ThirdDivision:Decision

DAMAGES SO SPECIFIED IN THE COMPLAINT SHALL BE THE BASIS FOR

ASSESSINGTHEAMOUNTOFTHEFILINGFEES.


InManchesterDevelopmentCorporationvs.CourtofAppeals,No.L75919,May7,1987, 149
SCRA 562, this Court condemned the practice of counsel who in filing the original complaint
omittedfromtheprayeranyspecificationoftheamountofdamagesalthoughtheamountofover
P78 million is alleged in the body of the complaint. This Court observed that (T)his is clearly
intended for no other purpose than to evade the payment of the correct filing fees if not to
mislead the docket clerk, in the assessment of the filing fee. This fraudulent practice was
compounded when, even as this Court had taken cognizance of the anomaly and ordered an
investigation, petitioner through another counsel filed an amended complaint, deleting all
mentionoftheamountofdamagesbeingaskedforinthebodyofthecomplaint.xxx

For the guidance of all concerned, theWARNING given by the court in the aforecited case is
reproducedhereunder:

TheCourtserveswarningthatitwilltakedrasticactionuponarepetitionofthisunethical
practice.

Toputastoptothisirregularity,henceforthallcomplaints,petitions,answersandother
similarpleadingsshouldspecifytheamountofdamagesbeingprayedfornot
onlyinthebodyofthepleadingbutalsointheprayer,andsaiddamagesshall
be considered in the assessment of the filing fees in any case. Any pleading
thatfailstocomplywiththisrequirementshallnotbeacceptednoradmitted,
orshallotherwisebeexpungedfromtherecord.

The Court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the prescribed
docket fee.An amendment of the complaint or similar pleading will not thereby
vestjurisdictionintheCourt,muchlessthepaymentofthedocketfeebasedon
theamountsoughtintheamendedpleading.TherulingintheMagaspicase(115
SCRA 193) in so far as it is inconsistent with this pronouncement is overturned
andreversed.

StrictcompliancewiththisCircularisherebyenjoined.

Let this be circularized to all the courts hereinabove named and to the President and Board of
GovernorsoftheIntegratedBarofthePhilippines,whichisherebydirectedtodisseminatethis
Circulartoallitsmembers.
March24,1988.
(Sgd).CLAUDIOTEEHANKEE
ChiefJustice
(Emphasisandunderscoringsupplied)


Ontheotherhand,respondentmaintainsthatithadpaidthefilingfeewhichwasassessedbythe
clerk of court, and that there was no violation of Supreme Court Circular No. 7 because the
amountofdamageswasclearlyspecifiedintheprayer,towit:

2.OntheFIRSTCAUSEOFACTION

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/151242.htm 6/16
11/13/2016 ProtonCorpvsBanqueNationale:151242:June15,2005:J.CarpioMorales:ThirdDivision:Decision

(c) Defendant PROTON be ordered to pay the sum of (i) US DOLLARS EIGHT HUNDRED
FORTYFOURTHOUSANDSIXHUNDREDSEVENTYFOURANDSEVENCENTS(US$
844,674.07), plus accrued interests and other related charges thereon subsequent to August 15,
1998,untilfullypaidand(ii)anamountequivalentto5%ofallsumsduefromsaidDefendant,
asandforattorneysfees

3.OntheSECONDCAUSEOFACTION

(d)DefendantPROTONbeorderedtopaythesumof(i)USDOLLARSONEHUNDREDTWENTY
ANDFIFTYTHREECENTS(US$171,120.53),plusaccruedinterestsandotherrelatedchargesthereon
subsequenttoAugust15,1998untilfullypaidand(ii)anamountequivalentto5%ofallsumsduefrom
saidDefendant,asandforattorneysfees

4.OntheTHIRDCAUSEOFACTION

(e) Defendant PROTON be ordered to pay the sum of (i) US DOLLARS FIVE HUNDRED
TWENTY NINE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY NINE AND EIGHTY CENTS
(US$529,189.80),plusaccruedinterestsandotherrelatedchargesthereonsubsequenttoAugust
15, 1998 until fully paid and (ii) an amount equivalent to 5% or all sums due from said
Defendant,asandforattorneysfees

5.OnALLTHECAUSESOFACTION

Defendants AUTOMOTIVE CORPORATION PHILIPPINES, ASEA ONE CORPORATION
and AUTOCORP GROUP to be ordered to pay Plaintiff BNP the aggregate sum of (i) US
DOLLARSONEMILLIONFIVEHUNDREDFORTYFOURTHOUSANDNINEHUNDRED
EIGHTY FOUR AND FORTY CENTS (US$1,544,984.40) (First through Third Causes of
Action),plusaccruedinterestandotherrelatedchargesthereonsubsequenttoAugust15,1998
untilfullypaidand(ii)anamountequivalentto5%ofallsumsduefromsaidDefendants,asand
[26]
forattorneysfees.
Moreover,respondentpositsthattheamountofUS$1,544,984.40representsnotonlythe
principalbutalsointerestandotherrelatedchargeswhichhadaccruedasofAugust 15,
1998.RespondentgoesevenfurtherbysuggestingthatinlightofTacayv.RegionalTrial
[27]
CourtofTagum,DavaodelNorte wheretheSupremeCourtheld,

Wheretheactionispurelyfortherecoveryofmoneyordamages,thedocketfeesareassessedon
[28]
the basis of the aggregate amount claimed, exclusive only of interests and costs.
(Emphasisandunderscoringsupplied),


itmadeanoverpayment.

WhenTacaywasdecidedin1989,thepertinentruleapplicablewasSection5(a)ofRule141
whichprovidedforthefollowing:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/151242.htm 7/16
11/13/2016 ProtonCorpvsBanqueNationale:151242:June15,2005:J.CarpioMorales:ThirdDivision:Decision

SEC. 5. Clerks of Regional Trial Courts. (a) For filing an action or proceeding, or a
permissive counterclaim or crossclaim not arising out of the same transaction subject of the
complaint, a thirdparty complaint and a complaint in intervention and for all services in the
same,ifthesumclaimed,exclusiveofinterest,ofthevalueofthepropertyinlitigation,or
thevalueoftheestate,is:

1.LessthanP5,000.00.P32.00
2.P5,000.00ormorebutlessthanP10,000.0048.00
3.P10,000.00ormorebutlessthanP20,000.00..64.00
4.P20,000.00ormorebutlessthanP40,000.00..80.00
5.P40,000.00ormorebutlessthanP60,000.00..120.00
6.P60,000.00ormorebutlessthanP80,000.00.160.00
7.P80,000.00ormorebutlessthanP150,000.00200.00
8.AndforeachP1,000.00inexcessofP150,000.00.....4.00
9.Whenthevalueofthecasecannotbeestimated400.00
10.Whenthecasedoesnotconcernproperty
(naturalization,adoption,legalseparation,etc.).....64.00
11.Inforcibleentryandillegaldetainercasesappealed
frominferiorcourts.40.00

If the case concerns real estate, the assessed value thereof shall be considered in
computingthefees.

Incasethevalueofthepropertyorestateorthesumclaimislessormoreinaccordance
withtheappraisalofthecourt,thedifferenceoffeesshallberefundedorpaidasthecasemaybe.


When the complaint in this case was filed in 1998, however, as correctly pointed out by
[29]
petitioners, Rule 141 had been amended by Administrative Circular No. 1194 which
provides:

BY RESOLUTION OF THE COURT, DATED JUNE28,1994, PURSUANT TO SECTION 5
(5)OFARTICLEVIIIOFTHECONSTITUTION,RULE141,SECTION7(a)AND(d),and
SECTION8(a)and(b)OFTHERULESOFCOURTAREHEREBYAMENDEDTOREAD
ASFOLLOWS:

RULE141

LEGALFEES

xxx

Sec.7.ClerksofRegionalTrialCourts

(a)Forfilinganactionorapermissivecounterclaimormoneyclaimagainstanestatenotbased
on judgment, or for filing with leave of court a thirdparty, fourthparty, etc. complaint, or a
complaint in intervention, and for all clerical services in the same, if the total sum claimed,
inclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorneys fees, litigation expenses, and
costs,orthestatedvalueofthepropertyinlitigation,is:

1.NotmorethanP100,000.00P400.00
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/151242.htm 8/16
11/13/2016 ProtonCorpvsBanqueNationale:151242:June15,2005:J.CarpioMorales:ThirdDivision:Decision

2.P100,000.00,ormorebutnotmorethanP150,000.00600.00
3.ForeachP1,000.00inexcessofP150,000.00.5.00

xxx

Sec.8.ClerksofMetropolitanandMunicipalTrialCourts

(a)Foreachcivilactionorproceeding,wherethevalueofthesubjectmatterinvolved,orthe
amount of the demand, inclusive of interest, damages or whatever kind, attorneys fees,
litigationexpenses,andcosts,is:

1.NotmorethanP20,000.00...P120.00
2.MorethanP20,000.00butnotmorethanP100,000.00.400.00
3.MorethanP100,000.00butnotmorethanP200,000.00850.00
(Emphasisandunderscoringsupplied)


Theclerkofcourtshouldthushaveassessedthefilingfeebytakingintoconsiderationthetotal
sumclaimed,inclusiveofinterest,damagesofwhateverkind,attorneysfees,litigationexpenses,
andcosts,orthestatedvalueofthepropertyinlitigation.RespondentsandtheCourtofAppeals
reliancethenonTacaywasnotinorder.
Neitherwas,forthesamereason,theCourtofAppealsrelianceonthe1989caseofNgSoonv.
[30]
Alday, wherethisCourtheld:

The failure to state the rate of interest demanded was not fatal not only because it is the
Courtswhichultimatelyfixthesame,butalsobecauseRule141,Section5(a)oftheRulesof
Court,itemizingthefilingfees,speaksofthesumclaimed,exclusiveofinterest.Thisclearly
impliesthatthespecificationoftheinterestrateisnotthatindispensable.

Factually,therefore,noteverythingwaslefttoguessworkasrespondentJudgehasopined.
Thesumsclaimedwereascertainable,sufficientenoughtoallowacomputationpursuanttoRule
141,section5(a).

Furthermore, contrary to the position taken by respondent Judge, theamountsclaimed
need not be initially stated with mathematical precision. The same Rule 141, section 5(a)
[31]
(3rdparagraph),allowsanappraisalmoreorless. Thus:

In case the value of the property or estate or the sum claimed is less or more in
accordancewiththeappraisalofthecourt,thedifferenceoffeeshallberefundedorpaidasthe
casemaybe.

In other words, a final determination is still to be made by the Court, and the fees
ultimatelyfoundtobepayablewilleitherbeadditionallypaidbythepartyconcernedorrefunded
tohim,asthecasemaybe.Theaboveprovisionclearlyallowsaninitialpaymentofthefiling
fees corresponding to the estimated amount of the claim subject to adjustment as to what later
maybeproved.

...thereismeritinpetitioner'sclaimthatthethirdparagraphofRule141,Section5(a)
clearly contemplates a situation where an amount is alleged or claimed in the complaint but is
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/151242.htm 9/16
11/13/2016 ProtonCorpvsBanqueNationale:151242:June15,2005:J.CarpioMorales:ThirdDivision:Decision

lessormorethanwhatislaterproved.Ifwhatisprovedislessthanwhatwasclaimed,thena
refundwillbemadeifmore,additionalfeeswillbeexacted.Otherwisestated,whatissubjectto
adjustmentisthedifferenceinthefeeandnotthewholeamount(PilipinasShellPetroleumCorp.,
[32]
et als., vs. Court of Appeals, et als., G.R. No. 76119, April 10, 1989). (Emphasis and
underscoringsupplied)

RespectingtheCourtofAppealsconclusionthattheclerkofcourtdidnoterrwhenheapplied
theexchangerateofUS$1=P43.00[i]ntheabsenceofanyofficeguideoftherateofexchange
which said court functionary was duty bound to follow,[hence,] the rate he applied is
presumptivelycorrect,thesamedoesnotlie.Thepresumptionofregularityoftheclerkofcourts
[33] [34]
application of the exchange rate is not conclusive. It is disputable. As such, the
[35]
presumption may be overturned by the requisite rebutting evidence. In the case at bar,
[36]
petitionershaveadequatelyprovenwithdocumentaryevidence thattheexchangeratewhen
thecomplaintwasfiledonSeptember7,1998wasUS$1=P43.21.

Infine,thedocketfeespaidbyrespondentwereinsufficient.

Withrespecttopetitionersargumentthatthetrialcourtdidnotacquirejurisdictionoverthecase
inlightoftheinsufficientdocketfees,thesamedoesnotlie.

[37]
True,inManchesterDevelopmentCorporationv.CourtofAppeals, thisCourtheldthatthe
courtacquiresjurisdictionoveranycaseonlyuponthepaymentoftheprescribeddocketfees,
[38]
hence,itconcludedthatthetrialcourtdidnotacquirejurisdictionoverthecase.

Itbearsemphasis,however,thattherulinginManchesterwasclarifiedinSunInsuranceOffice,
[39]
Ltd.(SIOL)v.Asuncion whenthisCourtheldthatintheformertherewasclearlyaneffortto
defraud the government in avoiding to pay the correct docket fees, whereas in the latter the
plaintiffdemonstratedhiswillingnesstoabidebypayingtheadditionalfeesasrequired.

TheprincipleinManchestercouldverywellbeappliedinthepresentcase.Thepatternandthe
intenttodefraudthegovernmentofthedocketfeedueitisobviousnotonlyinthefilingofthe
originalcomplaintbutalsointhefilingofthesecondamendedcomplaint.

However, in Manchester, petitioner did not pay any additional docket fee until the case was
decidedbythisCourtonMay7,1987.Thus,inManchester, due to the fraud committed on

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/151242.htm 10/16
11/13/2016 ProtonCorpvsBanqueNationale:151242:June15,2005:J.CarpioMorales:ThirdDivision:Decision

thegovernment,thisCourtheldthatthecourtaquodid notacquirejurisdiction over the

case and that the amended complaint could not have been admitted inasmuch as the
originalcomplaintwasnullandvoid.

Inthepresentcase,amoreliberalinterpretationoftherulesiscalledforconsideringthat,
unlikeManchester,privaterespondentdemonstratedhiswillingnesstoabidebytherulesby
payingtheadditionaldocketfeesasrequired.ThepromulgationofthedecisioninManchester
musthavehadthatsoberinginfluenceonprivaterespondentwhothuspaidtheadditionaldocket
fee as ordered by the respondent court. It triggered his change of stance by manifesting his
willingnesstopaysuchadditionaldocketfeeasmaybeordered.

Nevertheless,petitionerscontendthatthedocketfeethatwaspaidisstillinsufficientconsidering
thetotalamountoftheclaim.Thisisamatterwhichtheclerkofcourtofthelowercourtand/or
his duly authorized docket clerk or clerk in charge should determine and, thereafter, if any
amountisfounddue,hemustrequiretheprivaterespondenttopaythesame.

Thus,theCourtrulesasfollows:

1.Itisnotsimplythefilingofthecomplaintorappropriateinitiatorypleading,butthepayment
of the prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subjectmatter or
natureoftheaction.Wherethefilingoftheinitiatorypleadingisnotaccompaniedbypaymentof
thedocketfee,thecourtmayallowpaymentofthefeewithinareasonabletimebutinnocase
beyondtheapplicableprescriptiveorreglementaryperiod.

2. The same rule applies to permissive counterclaims, thirdparty claims and similar pleadings,
whichshallnotbeconsideredfileduntilandunlessthefilingfeeprescribedthereforispaid.The
courtmayalsoallowpaymentofsaidfeewithinareasonabletimebutalsoinnocasebeyondits
applicableprescriptiveorreglementaryperiod.

3.Wherethetrialcourtacquiresjurisdictionoveraclaimbythefilingoftheappropriatepleading
and payment of the prescribed filing fee but, subsequently, the judgment awards a claim not
specifiedinthepleading,orifspecifiedthesamehasbeenleftfordeterminationbythecourt,the
additionalfilingfeethereforshallconstitutealienonthejudgment.Itshallbetheresponsibility
oftheClerkofCourtorhisdulyauthorizeddeputytoenforcesaidlienandassessandcollectthe
[40]
additionalfee. (Emphasisandunderscoringsupplied)


TherulinginSunInsuranceOfficewasechoedinthe2005caseofHeirsofBertuldoHinogv.
[41]
Hon.AchillesMelicor:

Plainly,whilethepaymentoftheprescribeddocketfeeisajurisdictionalrequirement,evenits
nonpaymentatthetimeoffilingdoesnotautomaticallycausethedismissalofthecase,aslong
as the fee is paid within the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period, more so when the
partyinvolveddemonstratesawillingnesstoabidebytherulesprescribingsuchpayment.Thus,
wheninsufficientfilingfeeswereinitiallypaidbytheplaintiffsandtherewasnointention
todefraudthegovernment,theManchesterruledoesnotapply.(Emphasisandunderscoring
suppliedcitationsomitted)

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/151242.htm 11/16
11/13/2016 ProtonCorpvsBanqueNationale:151242:June15,2005:J.CarpioMorales:ThirdDivision:Decision

Inthecaseatbar,respondentmerelyreliedontheassessmentmadebytheclerkofcourtwhich
turnedouttobeincorrect.Underthecircumstances,theclerkofcourthastheresponsibilityof
reassessing what respondent must pay within the prescriptive period, failing which the
complaintmeritsdismissal.

Parenthetically, in the complaint, respondent prayed for accrued interest subsequent to August
15,1998untilfullypaid.ThecomplainthavingbeenfiledonSeptember7, 1998, respondents
claimincludestheinterestfromAugust16,1998untilsuchdateoffiling.

Respondent did not, however, pay the filing fee corresponding to its claim for interest from
August16,1998untilthefilingofthecomplaintonSeptember7,1998.Aspriorlydiscussed,
thisisrequiredunderRule141,asamendedbyAdministrativeCircularNo.1194,whichwas
theruleapplicableatthetime.Thus,asthecomplaintcurrentlystands,respondentcannotclaim
the interest from August 16, 1998 until September 7, 1998, unless respondent is allowed by
motion to amend its complaint within a reasonable time and specify the precise amount of
[42]
interest petitioners owe from August 16, 1998 to September 7, 1998 and pay the
correspondingdocketfeetherefor.

With respect to the interest accruing after the filing of the complaint, the same can only be
determinedafterafinaljudgmenthasbeenhandeddown.Respondentcannotthusbemadeto
pay the corresponding docket fee therefor. Pursuant, however, to Section 2, Rule 141, as
amended by Administrative Circular No. 1194, respondent should be made to pay additional
feeswhichshallconstitutealienintheeventthetrialcourtadjudgesthatitisentitledtointerest
accruingafterthefilingofthecomplaint.

Sec.2.Feesaslien.Wherethecourtinitsfinaljudgmentawardsaclaimnotalleged,orarelief
differentormorethanthatclaimedinthepleading,thepartyconcernedshallpaytheadditional
feeswhichshallconstitutealienonthejudgmentinsatisfactionofsaidlien.Theclerkofcourt
shallassessandcollectthecorrespondingfees.

[43]
InAyalaCorporationv.Madayag, ininterpretingthethirdrulelaiddowninSunInsurance
regarding awards of claims not specified in the pleading, this Court held that the same refers
onlytodamagesarisingafterthefilingofthecomplaintorsimilarpleadingastowhichthe
additionalfilingfeethereforshallconstitutealienonthejudgment.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/151242.htm 12/16
11/13/2016 ProtonCorpvsBanqueNationale:151242:June15,2005:J.CarpioMorales:ThirdDivision:Decision

Theamountofanyclaimfordamages,therefore,arisingonorbeforethefilingofthecomplaint
oranypleadingshouldbespecified.Whileitistruethatthedeterminationofcertaindamagesas
exemplaryorcorrectivedamagesislefttothesounddiscretionofthecourt,itisthedutyofthe
partiesclaimingsuchdamagestospecifytheamountsoughtonthebasisofwhichthecourtmay
makeaproperdetermination,andfortheproperassessmentoftheappropriatedocketfees.The
exceptioncontemplatedastoclaimsnotspecifiedortoclaimsalthoughspecifiedareleftfor
determinationofthecourtislimitedonlytoanydamagesthatmayariseafterthefilingof
thecomplaintorsimilarpleadingforthenitwillnotbepossiblefortheclaimanttospecify
[44]
nor speculate as to the amount thereof. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied citation
omitted)


WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED in part. The July 25, 2001 Decision and the
December18,2001ResolutionoftheCourtAppealsareherebyMODIFIED.TheClerkofCourt
oftheRegionalTrialCourtofMakatiCityisorderedtoreassessanddeterminethedocketfees
that should be paid by respondent, BNP, in accordance with the Decision of this Court, and
directrespondenttopaythesamewithinfifteen(15)days,providedtheapplicableprescriptive
orreglementaryperiodhasnotyetexpired.Thereafter,thetrialcourtisorderedtoproceedwith
thecasewithutmostdispatch.

SOORDERED.


CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice




WECONCUR:


ARTEMIOV.PANGANIBAN
AssociateJustice
Chairman



ANGELINASANDOVALGUTIERREZ
AssociateJustice


RENATOC.CORONA
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/151242.htm 13/16
11/13/2016 ProtonCorpvsBanqueNationale:151242:June15,2005:J.CarpioMorales:ThirdDivision:Decision

AssociateJustice



CANCIOC.GARCIA
AssociateJustice



ATTESTATION

IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionwerereachedinconsultationbeforethecase
wasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.
ARTEMIOV.PANGANIBAN
AssociateJustice
Chairman

CERTIFICATION

PursuanttoArticleVIII,Section13oftheConstitution,andtheDivisionChairmansAttestation,
it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation
beforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt.


HILARIOG.DAVIDE,JR.
ChiefJustice

[1]
ThepetitionnamestheCourtofAppealsasarespondent.However,underSection4,Rule45oftheRulesofCourt,thelower
courtneednotbeimpleadedinpetitionsforreview.Hence,theCourtdeleteditfromthetitle.
[2]
Recordsat1822.
[3]
Id.at1213.
[4]
Id.at1415.
[5]
Id.at1617.
[6]
AccordingtorespondentBNP,Protonfailedtoremit(1)theamountofUS$844,674.07underthetrustreceiptagreementdated
June4,1996,(2)theamountofUS$171,120.53underthetrustreceiptagreementdatedJanuary14,1997,and(3)theamountof
US$529,189.80underthetrustagreementdatedApril24,1997.Theseamountsareinclusiveofinterestandotherrelatedcharges
accruingthereonasofAugust15,1998.However,thecomplaintdoesnotprovideabreakdownastowhichamountscomprise
therespectiveprincipalandinterestofeachofthethreetrustreceiptagreements.
[7]
Recordsat24.
[8]
Id.at89.
[9]
Id.at124126.
[10]
Id.at124125.
[11]
Id.at125126.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/151242.htm 14/16
11/13/2016 ProtonCorpvsBanqueNationale:151242:June15,2005:J.CarpioMorales:ThirdDivision:Decision

[12]
Id.at145146.
[13]
Ibid.
[14]
Id.at147152.
[15]
Id.at170174.
[16]
CourtofAppeals(CA)Rolloat2148.
[17]
Id.at186189.
[18]
Id.at188189.
[19]
Id.at196201.
[20]
Id.at212.
[21]
Rolloat13245.
[22]
Id.at27.
[23]
EffectiveAugust1,1994.
[24]
Thisfigurewasarrivedatbymultiplying43.21with1,622,233.62.
[25]
DatedMarch24,1988.
[26]
Recordsat910.
[27]
180SCRA433(1989).
[28]
Id.at443.
[29]
ItshouldbenotedhoweverthatRule141hasbeenfurtheramendedbyA.M.No.00201SCwhichtookeffectonMarch1,
2000.Thus,Sections7and8nowread:

Sec.7.ClerksofRegionalTrialCourts.

(a)Forfilinganactionorapermissivecounterclaimormoneyclaimagainstanestatenotbasedonjudgment,orfor
filing with leave of court a thirdparty, fourthparty, etc. complaint, or a complaint in intervention, and for all
clericalservicesinthesame,ifthetotalsumclaimed,exclusiveofinterest,orthestatedvalueofthepropertyin
litigation,is:

1.LessthanP100,000.00P500.00
2.P100,000.00,ormorebutlessthanP150,000.00..800.00
3.P150,000.00ormorebutlessthanP200,000.001,000.00
4.P200,000.00ormorebutlessthanP250,000.001,500.00
5.P250,000.00ormorebutlessthanP300,000.001,750.00
6.P300,000.00ormorebutlessthanP350,000.002,000.00
7.P350,000.00ormorebutlessthanP400,000.002,250.00
8.ForeachP1,000.00inexcessofP400,000.0010.00
xxx

Sec.8.ClerksofCourtsoftheFirstLevel.

(a) For each civil action or proceeding, whether the value of the subject matter involved, or the amount of the
demand,inclusiveofinterest,damagesofwhateverkind,attorneysfees,litigationexpenses,andcostsis:

1.NotmorethanP20,000.00P150.00
2.MorethanP20,000.00butnotmorethanP100,000.00500.00
3.MorethanP100,000.00butnotmorethanP200,000.00.1,250.00
4.MorethanP200,000.00butnotmorethanP300,000.00.1,750.00
5.MorethanP300,000.00butnotmorethanP400,000.00.2,500.00
[30]
178SCRA221(1989).

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/151242.htm 15/16
11/13/2016 ProtonCorpvsBanqueNationale:151242:June15,2005:J.CarpioMorales:ThirdDivision:Decision

[31]
ThethirdparagraphofSection5(a),Rule141wasnotretainedinthesubsequentamendmenttoRule141.
[32]
Id.at226227.
[33]
RulesofCourt,Rule131,sec.2.
[34]
RulesofCourt,Rule131,sec.3,par.(m).
[35]
RulesofCourt,Rule131,sec.3.
[36]
Recordsat87.
[37]
149SCRA562(1987).
[38]
Id.at569.
[39]
170SCRA274(1989).
[40]
Id.at284285.
[41]
G.R.No.140954,April12,2005.
[42]
TheclerkofcourtoftheRegionalTrialCourtwillnotbeabletodeterminetheinterestduefortheperiodfromAugust16,1998
toSeptember7,1998becausethecomplaintdoesnotprovideabreakdownoftheprincipalandinterestowedbypetitionersasit
merelylumpsthemintotheamountofUS$1,544,984.40.
[43]
181SCRA687(1990).
[44]
Id.at690691.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/151242.htm 16/16