Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Chua v. Executive Judge, MeTC Manila
Chua v. Executive Judge, MeTC Manila
October 2, 2013
for the filing fees for all forty (40) counts of violation of BP Blg. 22 filed before the MeTC. He, in fact, acknowledges
such obligation. He, in fact, admits that he is incapable of fulfilling such obligation in its entirety.
Rather, what petitioner is asking is that he at least be allowed to pursue some of the cases, the filing fees of which
he is capable of financing. Petitioner manifests that, given his current financial status, he simply cannot afford the
filing fees for all the forty (40) BP Blg. 22 cases.
We see nothing wrong or illegal in granting petitioners request.
First. The Executive Judge erred when she treated the entireP540,668.00 as one indivisible obligation, when that
figure was nothing but the sum of individual filing fees due for each count of violation of BP Blg.22 filed before the
MeTC. Granting petitioners request would not constitute a deferment in the payment of filing fees, for the latter
clearly intends to pay in full the filing fees of some, albeit not all, of the cases filed.
Filing fees, when required, are assessed and become due for each initiatory pleading filed.15 In criminal actions,
these pleadings refer to the information filed in court.
In the instant case, there are a total of forty (40) counts of violation of BP Blg. 22 that 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 criminal procedure, the filing of the forty(40) counts is equivalent to the filing of forty
(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 count separately.
1wphi1
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, the payment of their tiling fees should be made for all or none at all.18
That all forty (40) counts of violation of BP Blg. 22 all emanated from a single complaint 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) individual filing fees to be paid.
Neither would the consolidation of all forty (40) counts make any difference. Consolidation unifies criminal cases
involving related offenses only for purposes of trial.19 Consolidation does not transform the tiling fees due for
each case consolidated into one indivisible fee.
Third. Allowing petitioner to pay for the tiling fees of some of the forty ( 40) counts of violation of BP Big. 22 tiled
before the MeTC, will concededly result into the absolute non-payment of the filing fees of the rest. The fate of the
cases which filing fees were not paid, however, is already the concern of the MeTC.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed Orders dated 26 June 2012
and 26 July 2012 of the Executive Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Manila, in UDK Nos.12001457 to 96 are
ANNULED and SET ASIDE. The Metropolitan Trial Court, Manila, is hereby directed to accept payments of tiling
fees in UDK Nos. 12001457 to 96 on a per information basis.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
AT T EST AT ION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned
to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
CERT IF ICAT ION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned 1o
the writer of the opinion of the Court.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice
Footnotes
1 Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
converted by W eb2PDFConvert.com
2 Rollo; pp. 21-22and 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 Judge Marlin a M. Manuel.
3 The complaint was docketed in the OCP as I.S. No. XV-07-INV12A-00329.
4 Rollo, p. 21.
5 Id.
6 Id. at 5.
7 Id.
8 Id. at 24.
9 Id. at 21.
10 Id. at 22. Section 1(b) of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court provides:
(b) The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to include the
corresponding civil action. No reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed.
Upon filing of the aforesaid joint criminal and civil actions, the offended party shall pay 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 offended party shall pay additional filing fees based on the
amounts alleged therein. If the amounts are not so alleged but any of these damages are
subsequently awarded by the court, the filing fees based on the amount awarded shall constitute a
first lien on the judgment. (Emphasis supplied)
Where the civil action has been filed separately and trial thereof has not yet commenced, it may be
consolidated with the criminal action upon application with the court trying the latter case. If the
application is granted, the trial of both actions shall proceed in accordance with section2 of this Rule
governing consolidation of the civil and criminal actions.
11 See Miranda v. Court of Appeals, 163 Phil. 285, 321-322 (1976).
12 Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
13 Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
14 See Jumaquio v. Villarosa, G.R. No. 165924, 19 January 2009, 576 SCRA 204, 209.
15 See Section 1 of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court.
16 See Section 1(b) of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court. See also Rollo p. 55.
17 See Section 13, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court.
18 Rollo, pp. 48-49.
19 See Section 22 of Rule I 19 of the Rules of Court.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
converted by W eb2PDFConvert.com