Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Pleading - Exemption of PAO From Docket and Filing Fees

    Uploaded by

    Don Sala
    32 views2 pages
    1) The plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of a court order denying exemption from filing fees due to indigency. 2) Supreme Court circulars have amended rules to exempt legal aid/PAO clients from payment of docket and other fees for filing cases. 3) The plaintiff, an 80-year-old dependent senior citizen, requests exemption to allow her to seek legal remedy regarding a land dispute.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) The plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of a court order denying exemption from filing fees due to indigency. 2) Supreme Court circulars have amended rules to exempt legal aid/PAO clients from payment of docket and other fees for filing cases. 3) The plaintiff, an 80-year-old dependent senior citizen, requests exemption to allow her to seek legal remedy regarding a land dispute.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    32 views2 pages

    Pleading - Exemption of PAO From Docket and Filing Fees

    Uploaded by

    Don Sala
    1) The plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of a court order denying exemption from filing fees due to indigency. 2) Supreme Court circulars have amended rules to exempt legal aid/PAO clients from payment of docket and other fees for filing cases. 3) The plaintiff, an 80-year-old dependent senior citizen, requests exemption to allow her to seek legal remedy regarding a land dispute.

    Copyright:

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

    Republic of the Philippines

    Regional Trial Court - Branch 25


    8th Judicial Region
    Bulwagan ng Katarungan
    Maasin City, Southern Leyte

    Annabella Demeterio- Hora, Civil Case No. ________


    Plaintiff, For: Recovery of Property
    -versus- and Damages
    Spouses Eufrocina Lao Pinili
    and Alex Pinili,
    Defendants.
    x----------------------------------------x
    URGENT MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
    Movant/Plaintiff through counsel unto this Honorable Court respectfully
    moves for reconsideration of the June 1, 2020 Order denying the motion to
    exempt payment of filing fee & related cost in the filing of the Complaint in the
    above-entitled case, on the ground that:
    The requirements under Section 19 Rule 141 of the Rules of Court has
    been amended by Supreme Court OCA Circular No.121-2007 to the effect
    that clients of PAO shall be exempt from payment of docket and other
    fees incidental to instituting an action in court.
    1. Supreme Court OCA Circular No.67-2007 (Exemption of the Indigent
    Clients of the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) from the Payment of Docket
    and Other Fees) initially provides:
    “xxx However, the entitlement to the exemption from the payment of
    docket and other fees shall be subject ot the conditions prescribed under
    Section 19 Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of Court.xxx”

    2. Said condition was lifted under Supreme Court OCA Circular No.121-2007,
    which provides:
    “Acting on said request, the same is hereby GRANTED.
    Henceforth, the clients of the PAO shall be exempt from payment of
    docket and other fees incidental to instituting an action in court, xxx as an
    original proceeding or on appeal.
    The conditions imposed in OCA Circular No.67-2007 for the
    entitlement to the exemption is hereby REVOKED. xxx”
    3. In effect, the condition in Section 19 (b) Rule 141 of the Rules of Court that
    the movant “do not own real property with a fair market value of more that
    P300,000.00” no longer applies inasfar as clients of PAO are concerned.
    1
    4. The Supreme Court declared in Juan Enaje vs Victorio Ramos, et.al., G.R.
    No.L-22109, Jan. 30, 1970, that the determinative factor for indigency is the
    income of the litigant and not his ownership of real property.
    Inasmuch as movant/plaintiff is already 80 years old senior citizen with
    no income and dependent only on the support given by her daughter Annalen
    Demeterio Hora, she earnestly prays that she be exempted from paying docket
    & other fees and that she be given the opportunity to seek remedy from the
    Court regarding her land problem, in the interest of justice.
    Attached are the:
    1. Affidavit of Indigency of the movant/plaintiff, and
    2. Joint affidavit of indigency if two disinterested persons
    Plaintiff/movant sincerely apologizes for some inconsistent statements in
    the previous affidavits of indigency submitted earlier. Plaintiff/inadvertently
    failed to take into consideration the Certificate on the assessed value of her real
    properties when said affidavits were prepared. Plaintiff/movant had no intention
    to misled the Court.
    Respectfully submitted.
    Maasin City, Southern Leyte. June 2, 2020.
    Public Attorney’s Office
    Maasin District Office
    Bulwagan ng Katarungan
    Maasin City, Southern Leyte
    (counsel for the movant/plaintiff)
    By:

    MISAEL J. BIDON
    Public Attorney III
    Roll No. 45622
    IBP Lifetime No.05077
    MCLE Compliance No.VI-0000882
    The Clerk of Court Issued October 25, 2016
    Regional Trial Court-Branch 25
    Bulwagan ng Katarunga
    Maasin City, Southern Leyte
    Please submit herein urgent motion for reconsideration for the
    consideration and approval of the Honorable Court without need for oral
    arguments. Thank you.

    MISAEL J. BIDON
    2

    You might also like