Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Manchester Development v. CA - Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Jayson Gabriel Soriano
    55 views2 pages
    The rule is well-settled "that a case is deemed filed only upon payment of the docket fee regardless of the actual date of filing in court."

    Original Title

    Manchester Development v. CA_Case Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The rule is well-settled "that a case is deemed filed only upon payment of the docket fee regardless of the actual date of filing in court."

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    55 views2 pages

    Manchester Development v. CA - Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Jayson Gabriel Soriano
    The rule is well-settled "that a case is deemed filed only upon payment of the docket fee regardless of the actual date of filing in court."

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    75919 May 7, 1987

    MANCHESTER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL., petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS,


    CITY LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, STEPHEN ROXAS, ANDREW LUISON, GRACE
    LUISON and JOSE DE MAISIP, respondents.

    GANCAYCO, J.:

    FACTS: Manchester Development Corporation filed a complaint for specific performance and
    damages against City Land Development Corporation. Manchester asks the Court to order
    defendants to execute a contract of purchase and sale of the subject property and to annul City
    Land’s illegal forfeiture of Manchester’s money in the sum of P3 Million pesos paid by Manchester
    for the subject property. Manchester also asks the Court to order City Land to pay actual,
    compensatory, and exemplary damages. The amount of damages sought is not specified in the
    prayer although the body of the complaint alleges the total amount of over P78 Million as damages
    suffered by plaintiff.

    Upon the filing of the complaint, the amount of P410 was paid as docket fee based on the ground
    that the action is merely one for specific performance where the amount involved is not capable of
    pecuniary estimation. The total amount of damages sought is not stated in the prayer of the
    complaint but it is spelled out in the body of the complaint totalling in the amount of P78, 750, 000.

    The underassessment was brought to the attention of the Court together with other similar other
    cases and the Court immediately ordered an investigation. Meanwhile, the plaintiff, through
    another counsel with leave of court, filed an Amended Complaint wherein the mention the amount
    of damages in the body of the complaint was eliminated while maintaining the original prayer.

    The Court issued an order to reassess the docket fee in the present cases and all other cases
    investigated. The Trial Court directed the plaintiffs to rectify the Amended Complaint by stating the
    amounts which they are asking for. The plaintiffs specified the amount of damages in the body of
    the complaint in the reduced amount of P10, 000, 000. Still, no amount of damages was specified in
    the prayer. The Amended Complaint was admitted.

    Petitioner Manchester in support of their contention that the filing fee must be assessed on the
    basis of the amended complaint cites the case of Magaspi v. Ramolete. They contend that the Court
    of Appeals erred in ruling that the filing fee should be levied by considering the amount of damages
    sought in the original complaint.

    ISSUE: Whether the filing fee should be based on the amount stated in the Amended Complaint
    instead of the Original Complaint

    HELD: The facts of the case in Magaspi v. Ramolete is different from the present case.

    There was an honest difference of opinion as to the nature of the action in the Magaspi case. The
    Magaspi case was an action for recovery of ownership and possession of a parcel of land with
    damages, while the present case is an action for torts and damages and specific performance with
    prayer for temporary restraining order, etc.
    In the present case no such honest difference of opinion was possible as the allegations of the
    complaint, the designation and the prayer show clearly that it is an action for damages and specific
    performance. The docketing fee should be assessed by considering the amount of damages as
    alleged in the original complaint.

    The rule is well-settled "that a case is deemed filed only upon payment of the docket fee regardless
    of the actual date of filing in court."

    Thus, in the present case the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the case by the payment of
    only P410.00 as docket fee. Neither can the amendment of the complaint thereby vest jurisdiction
    upon the Court. For all legal purposes there is no such original complaint that was duly filed which
    could be amended. Consequently, the order admitting the amended complaint and all subsequent
    proceedings and actions taken by the trial court are null and void.

    The Court of Appeals therefore, aptly ruled in the present case that the basis of assessment of the
    docket fee should be the amount of damages sought in the original complaint and not in the
    amended complaint.

    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 vest jurisdiction in the
    Court, much less the payment of the docket fee based on the amounts sought in the amended
    pleading. The ruling in the Magaspi case in so far as it is inconsistent with this pronouncement is
    overturned and reversed.

    You might also like