Spouses Algura v. Local Gov't. Unit of The City of Naga, 536 Phil. 819 (2006)
Spouses Algura v. Local Gov't. Unit of The City of Naga, 536 Phil. 819 (2006)
150135 October 30, 2006 On September 1, 1999, spouses Antonio F. Algura and Lorencita S.J. Algura filed a
Verified Complaint dated August 30, 19994 for damages against the Naga City
SPOUSES ANTONIO F. ALGURA and LORENCITA S.J. ALGURA, petitioners, Government and its officers, arising from the alleged illegal demolition of their residence
vs. and boarding house and for payment of lost income derived from fees paid by their
THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT OF THE CITY OF NAGA, ATTY. MANUEL TEOXON, boarders amounting to PhP 7,000.00 monthly.
ENGR. LEON PALMIANO, NATHAN SERGIO and BENJAMIN NAVARRO, SR., respondents.
Simultaneously, petitioners filed an Ex-Parte Motion to Litigate as Indigent Litigants,5 to
which petitioner Antonio Algura's Pay Slip No. 2457360 (Annex "A" of motion) was
appended, showing a gross monthly income of Ten Thousand Four Hundred Seventy
Four Pesos (PhP 10,474.00) and a net pay of Three Thousand Six Hundred Sixteen Pesos
and Ninety Nine Centavos (PhP 3,616.99) for [the month of] July 1999.6 Also attached as
DECISION Annex "B" to the motion was a July 14, 1999 Certification7 issued by the Office of the
City Assessor of Naga City, which stated that petitioners had no property declared in
their name for taxation purposes.
On May 5, 2000, the trial court issued an Order14 giving petitioners the opportunity to Unconvinced of the said ruling, the Alguras instituted the instant petition raising a
comply with the requisites laid down in Section 18, Rule 141, for them to qualify as solitary issue for the consideration of the Court: whether petitioners should be
indigent litigants. considered as indigent litigants who qualify for exemption from paying filing fees.
On May 13, 2000, petitioners submitted their Compliance15 attaching the affidavits of The Ruling of the Court
petitioner Lorencita Algura16 and Erlinda Bangate,17 to comply with the requirements of
then Rule 141, Section 18 of the Rules of Court and in support of their claim to be The petition is meritorious.
declared as indigent litigants.
A review of the history of the Rules of Court on suits in forma pauperis (pauper litigant)
In her May 13, 2000 Affidavit, petitioner Lorencita Algura claimed that the demolition of is necessary before the Court rules on the issue of the Algura spouses' claim to
their small dwelling deprived her of a monthly income amounting to PhP 7,000.00. She, exemption from paying filing fees.
her husband, and their six (6) minor children had to rely mainly on her husband's salary
as a policeman which provided them a monthly amount of PhP 3,500.00, more or less.
When the Rules of Court took effect on January 1, 1964, the rule on pauper litigants was
Also, they did not own any real property as certified by the assessor's office of Naga City.
found in Rule 3, Section 22 which provided that:
More so, according to her, the meager net income from her small sari-sari store and the
rentals of some boarders, plus the salary of her husband, were not enough to pay the
family's basic necessities. Section 22. Pauper litigant.—Any court may authorize a litigant to prosecute
his action or defense as a pauper upon a proper showing that he has no means
to that effect by affidavits, certificate of the corresponding provincial, city or
To buttress their position as qualified indigent litigants, petitioners also submitted the
municipal treasurer, or otherwise. Such authority[,] once given[,] shall include
affidavit of Erlinda Bangate, who attested under oath, that she personally knew spouses
an exemption from payment of legal fees and from filing appeal bond, printed
Antonio Algura and Lorencita Algura, who were her neighbors; that they derived
record and printed brief. The legal fees shall be a lien to any judgment
substantial income from their boarders; that they lost said income from their boarders'
rendered in the case [favorable] to the pauper, unless the court otherwise
rentals when the Local Government Unit of the City of Naga, through its officers,
provides.
demolished part of their house because from that time, only a few boarders could be
accommodated; that the income from the small store, the boarders, and the meager
salary of Antonio Algura were insufficient for their basic necessities like food and From the same Rules of Court, Rule 141 on Legal Fees, on the other hand, did not
contain any provision on pauper litigants.
On July 19, 1984, the Court, in Administrative Matter No. 83-6-389-0 (formerly G.R. No. Any adverse party may contest the grant of such authority at any time before
64274), approved the recommendation of the Committee on the Revision of Rates and judgment is rendered by the trial court. If the court should determine after
Charges of Court Fees, through its Chairman, then Justice Felix V. Makasiar, to revise the hearing that the party declared as an indigent is in fact a person with sufficient
fees in Rule 141 of the Rules of Court to generate funds to effectively cover income or property, the proper docket and other lawful fees shall be assessed
administrative costs for services rendered by the courts.20 A provision on pauper and collected by the clerk of court. If payment is not made within the time
litigants was inserted which reads: fixed by the court, execution shall issue for the payment thereof, without
prejudice to such other sanctions as the court may impose.
Section 16. Pauper-litigants exempt from payment of court fees.—Pauper-
litigants include wage earners whose gross income do not exceed P2,000.00 a At the time the Rules on Civil Procedure were amended by the Court in Bar Matter No.
month or P24,000.00 a year for those residing in Metro Manila, and P1,500.00 803, however, there was no amendment made on Rule 141, Section 16 on pauper
a month or P18,000.00 a year for those residing outside Metro Manila, or litigants.
those who do not own real property with an assessed value of not more than
P24,000.00, or not more than P18,000.00 as the case may be. On March 1, 2000, Rule 141 on Legal Fees was amended by the Court in A.M. No. 00-2-
01-SC, whereby certain fees were increased or adjusted. In this Resolution, the Court
Such exemption shall include exemption from payment of fees for filing appeal amended Section 16 of Rule 141, making it Section 18, which now reads:
bond, printed record and printed brief.
Section 18. Pauper-litigants exempt from payment of legal fees.—Pauper
The legal fees shall be a lien on the monetary or property judgment rendered litigants (a) whose gross income and that of their immediate family do not
in favor of the pauper-litigant. exceed four thousand (P4,000.00) pesos a month if residing in Metro Manila,
and three thousand (P3,000.00) pesos a month if residing outside Metro
To be entitled to the exemption herein provided, the pauper-litigant shall Manila, and (b) who do not own real property with an assessed value of more
execute an affidavit that he does not earn the gross income abovementioned, than fifty thousand (P50,000.00) pesos shall be exempt from the payment of
nor own any real property with the assessed value afore-mentioned [sic], legal fees.
supported by a certification to that effect by the provincial, city or town
assessor or treasurer. The legal fees shall be a lien on any judgment rendered in the case favorably to
the pauper litigant, unless the court otherwise provides.
When the Rules of Court on Civil Procedure were amended by the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure (inclusive of Rules 1 to 71) in Supreme Court Resolution in Bar Matter No. 803 To be entitled to the exemption herein provided, the litigant shall execute an
dated April 8, 1997, which became effective on July 1, 1997, Rule 3, Section 22 of the affidavit that he and his immediate family do not earn the gross income
Revised Rules of Court was superseded by Rule 3, Section 21 of said 1997 Rules of Civil abovementioned, nor do they own any real property with the assessed value
Procedure, as follows: aforementioned, supported by an affidavit of a disinterested person attesting
to the truth of the litigant's affidavit.
Section 21. Indigent party.—A party may be authorized to litigate his action,
claim or defense as an indigent if the court, upon an ex parte application and Any falsity in the affidavit of a litigant or disinterested person shall be sufficient
hearing, is satisfied that the party is one who has no money or property cause to strike out the pleading of that party, without prejudice to whatever
sufficient and available for food, shelter and basic necessities for himself and criminal liability may have been incurred.
his family.
It can be readily seen that the rule on pauper litigants was inserted in Rule 141 without
Such authority shall include an exemption from payment of docket and other revoking or amending Section 21 of Rule 3, which provides for the exemption of pauper
lawful fees, and of transcripts of stenographic notes which the court may order litigants from payment of filing fees. Thus, on March 1, 2000, there were two
to be furnished him. The amount of the docket and other lawful fees which the existing rules on pauper litigants; namely, Rule 3, Section 21 and Rule 141, Section 18.
indigent was exempted from paying shall be a lien on any judgment rendered
in the case favorable to the indigent, unless the court otherwise provides.
On August 16, 2004, Section 18 of Rule 141 was further amended in Administrative It is undisputed that the Complaint (Civil Case No. 99-4403) was filed on September 1,
Matter No. 04-2-04-SC, which became effective on the same date. It then became 1999. However, the Naga City RTC, in its April 14, 2000 and July 17, 2000
Section 19 of Rule 141, to wit: Orders, incorrectly applied Rule 141, Section 18 on Legal Fees when the applicable rules
at that time were Rule 3, Section 21 on Indigent Party which took effect on July 1, 1997
Sec. 19. Indigent litigants exempt from payment of legal fees.– INDIGENT and Rule 141, Section 16 on Pauper Litigants which became effective on July 19, 1984
LITIGANTS (A) WHOSE GROSS INCOME AND THAT OF THEIR IMMEDIATE up to February 28, 2000.
FAMILY DO NOT EXCEED AN AMOUNT DOUBLE THE MONTHLY MINIMUM
WAGE OF AN EMPLOYEE AND (B) WHO DO NOT OWN REAL PROPERTY WITH A The old Section 16, Rule 141 requires applicants to file an ex-parte motion to litigate as a
FAIR MARKET VALUE AS STATED IN THE CURRENT TAX DECLARATION OF MORE pauper litigant by submitting an affidavit that they do not have a gross income of PhP
THAN THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P300,000.00) PESOS SHALL BE EXEMPT 2,000.00 a month or PhP 24,000.00 a year for those residing in Metro Manila and PhP
FROM PAYMENT OF LEGAL FEES. 1,500.00 a month or PhP 18,000.00 a year for those residing outside Metro Manila or
those who do not own real property with an assessed value of not more than PhP
The legal fees shall be a lien on any judgment rendered in the case favorable to 24,000.00 or not more than PhP 18,000.00 as the case may be. Thus, there are two
the indigent litigant unless the court otherwise provides. requirements: a) income requirement—the applicants should not have a gross monthly
income of more than PhP 1,500.00, and b) property requirement––they should not own
property with an assessed value of not more than PhP 18,000.00.
To be entitled to the exemption herein provided, the litigant shall execute an
affidavit that he and his immediate family do not earn a gross income
abovementioned, and they do not own any real property with the fair value In the case at bar, petitioners Alguras submitted the Affidavits of petitioner Lorencita
aforementioned, supported by an affidavit of a disinterested person attesting Algura and neighbor Erlinda Bangate, the pay slip of petitioner Antonio F. Algura
to the truth of the litigant's affidavit. The current tax declaration, if any, shall showing a gross monthly income of PhP 10,474.00,21 and a Certification of the Naga City
be attached to the litigant's affidavit. assessor stating that petitioners do not have property declared in their names for
taxation.22 Undoubtedly, petitioners do not own real property as shown by the
Certification of the Naga City assessor and so the property requirement is met. However
Any falsity in the affidavit of litigant or disinterested person shall be sufficient
with respect to the income requirement, it is clear that the gross monthly income of PhP
cause to dismiss the complaint or action or to strike out the pleading of that
10,474.00 of petitioner Antonio F. Algura and the PhP 3,000.00 income of Lorencita
party, without prejudice to whatever criminal liability may have been incurred.
Algura when combined, were above the PhP 1,500.00 monthly income threshold
(Emphasis supplied.)
prescribed by then Rule 141, Section 16 and therefore, the income requirement was not
satisfied. The trial court was therefore correct in disqualifying petitioners Alguras as
Amendments to Rule 141 (including the amendment to Rule 141, Section 18) were made indigent litigants although the court should have applied Rule 141, Section 16 which was
to implement RA 9227 which brought about new increases in filing fees. Specifically, in in effect at the time of the filing of the application on September 1, 1999. Even if Rule
the August 16, 2004 amendment, the ceiling for the gross income of litigants applying 141, Section 18 (which superseded Rule 141, Section 16 on March 1, 2000) were
for exemption and that of their immediate family was increased from PhP 4,000.00 a applied, still the application could not have been granted as the combined PhP
month in Metro Manila and PhP 3,000.00 a month outside Metro Manila, to double the 13,474.00 income of petitioners was beyond the PhP 3,000.00 monthly income
monthly minimum wage of an employee; and the maximum value of the property threshold.
owned by the applicant was increased from an assessed value of PhP 50,000.00 to a
maximum market value of PhP 300,000.00, to be able to accommodate more indigent
Unrelenting, petitioners however argue in their Motion for Reconsideration of the April
litigants and promote easier access to justice by the poor and the marginalized in the
14, 2000 Order disqualifying them as indigent litigants23 that the rules have been relaxed
wake of these new increases in filing fees.
by relying on Rule 3, Section 21 of the 1997 Rules of Civil procedure which authorizes
parties to litigate their action as indigents if the court is satisfied that the party is "one
Even if there was an amendment to Rule 141 on August 16, 2004, there was still no who has no money or property sufficient and available for food, shelter and basic
amendment or recall of Rule 3, Section 21 on indigent litigants. necessities for himself and his family." The trial court did not give credence to this view
of petitioners and simply applied Rule 141 but ignored Rule 3, Section 21 on Indigent
With this historical backdrop, let us now move on to the sole issue—whether petitioners Party.
are exempt from the payment of filing fees.
The position of petitioners on the need to use Rule 3, Section 21 on their application to used to make all acts stand and if, by any reasonable construction they can
litigate as indigent litigants brings to the fore the issue on whether a trial court has to be reconciled, the later act will not operate as a repeal of the
apply both Rule 141, Section 16 and Rule 3, Section 21 on such applications or should earlier.24 (Emphasis supplied).
the court apply only Rule 141, Section 16 and discard Rule 3, Section 21 as having been
superseded by Rule 141, Section 16 on Legal Fees. Instead of declaring that Rule 3, Section 21 has been superseded and impliedly amended
by Section 18 and later Section 19 of Rule 141, the Court finds that the two rules can
The Court rules that Rule 3, Section 21 and Rule 141, Section 16 (later amended as Rule and should be harmonized.
141, Section 18 on March 1, 2000 and subsequently amended by Rule 141, Section 19
on August 16, 2003, which is now the present rule) are still valid and enforceable rules The Court opts to reconcile Rule 3, Section 21 and Rule 141, Section 19 because it is a
on indigent litigants. settled principle that when conflicts are seen between two provisions, all efforts must
be made to harmonize them. Hence, "every statute [or rule] must be so construed and
For one, the history of the two seemingly conflicting rules readily reveals that it was not harmonized with other statutes [or rules] as to form a uniform system of
the intent of the Court to consider the old Section 22 of Rule 3, which took effect on jurisprudence."25
January 1, 1994 to have been amended and superseded by Rule 141, Section 16, which
took effect on July 19, 1984 through A.M. No. 83-6-389-0. If that is the case, then the In Manila Jockey Club, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, this Court enunciated that in the
Supreme Court, upon the recommendation of the Committee on the Revision on Rules, interpretation of seemingly conflicting laws, efforts must be made to first harmonize
could have already deleted Section 22 from Rule 3 when it amended Rules 1 to 71 and them. This Court thus ruled:
approved the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which took effect on July 1, 1997. The fact
that Section 22 which became Rule 3, Section 21 on indigent litigant was retained in the
Consequently, every statute should be construed in such a way that will
rules of procedure, even elaborating on the meaning of an indigent party, and was also
harmonize it with existing laws. This principle is expressed in the legal maxim
strengthened by the addition of a third paragraph on the right to contest the grant of
'interpretare et concordare leges legibus est optimus interpretandi,' that is, to
authority to litigate only goes to show that there was no intent at all to consider said
interpret and to do it in such a way as to harmonize laws with laws is the best
rule as expunged from the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
method of interpretation.26
Furthermore, Rule 141 on indigent litigants was amended twice: first on March 1, 2000
In the light of the foregoing considerations, therefore, the two (2) rules can stand
and the second on August 16, 2004; and yet, despite these two amendments, there was
together and are compatible with each other. When an application to litigate as an
no attempt to delete Section 21 from said Rule 3. This clearly evinces the desire of the
indigent litigant is filed, the court shall scrutinize the affidavits and supporting
Court to maintain the two (2) rules on indigent litigants to cover applications to litigate
documents submitted by the applicant to determine if the applicant complies with the
as an indigent litigant.
income and property standards prescribed in the present Section 19 of Rule 141—that
is, the applicant's gross income and that of the applicant's immediate family do not
It may be argued that Rule 3, Section 21 has been impliedly repealed by the recent 2000 exceed an amount double the monthly minimum wage of an employee; and the
and 2004 amendments to Rule 141 on legal fees. This position is bereft of merit. Implied applicant does not own real property with a fair market value of more than Three
repeals are frowned upon unless the intent of the framers of the rules is unequivocal. It Hundred Thousand Pesos (PhP 300,000.00). If the trial court finds that the applicant
has been consistently ruled that: meets the income and property requirements, the authority to litigate as indigent
litigant is automatically granted and the grant is a matter of right.
(r)epeals by implication are not favored, and will not be decreed, unless it is
manifest that the legislature so intended. As laws are presumed to be passed However, if the trial court finds that one or both requirements have not been met, then
with deliberation and with full knowledge of all existing ones on the subject, it it would set a hearing to enable the applicant to prove that the applicant has "no money
is but reasonable to conclude that in passing a statute[,] it was not intended to or property sufficient and available for food, shelter and basic necessities for himself
interfere with or abrogate any former law relating to same matter, unless the and his family." In that hearing, the adverse party may adduce countervailing evidence
repugnancy between the two is not only irreconcilable, but also clear and to disprove the evidence presented by the applicant; after which the trial court will rule
convincing, and flowing necessarily from the language used, unless the later on the application depending on the evidence adduced. In addition, Section 21 of Rule 3
act fully embraces the subject matter of the earlier, or unless the reason for also provides that the adverse party may later still contest the grant of such authority at
the earlier act is beyond peradventure removed. Hence, every effort must be any time before judgment is rendered by the trial court, possibly based on newly
discovered evidence not obtained at the time the application was heard. If the court precious rights which must be shielded and secured is the unhampered access to the
determines after hearing, that the party declared as an indigent is in fact a person with justice system by the poor, the underprivileged, and the marginalized.
sufficient income or property, the proper docket and other lawful fees shall be assessed
and collected by the clerk of court. If payment is not made within the time fixed by the WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the April 14, 2000 Order granting the
court, execution shall issue or the payment of prescribed fees shall be made, without disqualification of petitioners, the July 17, 2000 Order denying petitioners' Motion for
prejudice to such other sanctions as the court may impose. Reconsideration, and the September 11, 2001 Order dismissing the case in Civil Case No.
RTC-99-4403 before the Naga City RTC, Branch 27 are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.
The Court concedes that Rule 141, Section 19 provides specific standards while Rule 3, Furthermore, the Naga City RTC is ordered to set the "Ex-Parte Motion to Litigate as
Section 21 does not clearly draw the limits of the entitlement to the exemption. Indigent Litigants" for hearing and apply Rule 3, Section 21 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Knowing that the litigants may abuse the grant of authority, the trial court must use Procedure to determine whether petitioners can qualify as indigent litigants.
sound discretion and scrutinize evidence strictly in granting exemptions, aware that the
applicant has not hurdled the precise standards under Rule 141. The trial court must No costs.
also guard against abuse and misuse of the privilege to litigate as an indigent litigant to
prevent the filing of exorbitant claims which would otherwise be regulated by a legal fee
SO ORDERED.
requirement.
Quisumbing, J., Chairperson, Carpio, Carpio Morales, and Tinga, JJ., concur.
Thus, the trial court should have applied Rule 3, Section 21 to the application of the
Alguras after their affidavits and supporting documents showed that petitioners did not
satisfy the twin requirements on gross monthly income and ownership of real property
under Rule 141. Instead of disqualifying the Alguras as indigent litigants, the trial court
should have called a hearing as required by Rule 3, Section 21 to enable the petitioners
to adduce evidence to show that they didn't have property and money sufficient and
available for food, shelter, and basic necessities for them and their family.27 In that
hearing, the respondents would have had the right to also present evidence to refute
the allegations and evidence in support of the application of the petitioners to litigate as
indigent litigants. Since this Court is not a trier of facts, it will have to remand the case to
the trial court to determine whether petitioners can be considered as indigent litigants
using the standards set in Rule 3, Section 21.
Recapitulating the rules on indigent litigants, therefore, if the applicant for exemption
meets the salary and property requirements under Section 19 of Rule 141, then the
grant of the application is mandatory. On the other hand, when the application does not
satisfy one or both requirements, then the application should not be denied outright;
instead, the court should apply the "indigency test" under Section 21 of Rule 3 and use
its sound discretion in determining the merits of the prayer for exemption.
Access to justice by the impoverished is held sacrosanct under Article III, Section 11 of
the 1987 Constitution. The Action Program for Judicial Reforms (APJR) itself, initiated by
former Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., placed prime importance on 'easy access to
justice by the poor' as one of its six major components. Likewise, the judicial philosophy
of Liberty and Prosperity of Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban makes it imperative that
the courts shall not only safeguard but also enhance the rights of individuals—which are
considered sacred under the 1987 Constitution. Without doubt, one of the most