100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 4 pages.
reasonable as and by way of attorney's fees and, under thecircumstances of this case, P10,000,000.00 would bereasonable;
oTogether with the complaint, the plaintiffs filed a "MOTION FORLEAVE TO FILE CASE AS PAUPER LITIGANT."They alleged that "a big majority ... of them are poor andhave no sufficient means to finance the filing of this caseespecially because, considering the gargantuan amount ofdamages involved,the amount of filing fee alone will run to several thousandsof pesos,"that in view thereof and the fact that the case was one of"national concern as shown by the public outcry andsustained publicity that it has evoked,' the Court "may bejustified in ... (allowing them) to file the instant suit aspauper litigants or, in the alternative, (ruling) that the legalfees incident to the filing of this case may constitute a lienon whatever judgment may be recovered by the plaintiffstherein."oOn the same day, their counsel submitted a certification of theCity Assessor of Quezon City of even date to the effect "thataccording to the assessment records x x there is no propertywhether land or improvements registered for taxation purposes inthe . . names of' seven (7) of the named plaintiffs.By Order dated January 4, 1988, the motion was grantedby Judge Chingcuangco in his capacity as ExecutiveJudge only in so far as said seven (7) plaintiffs wereconcerned, but not as regards the case.oIt is this order that the plaintiffs, in their counsel's aforementionedletter of January 5, 1988, request this Court to set aside. Theyask that they all instead be allowed to prosecute the case aspauper litigants and they be exempt from paying filing fees whichthey say have "been assessed in the amount of P6,060,252.50based on the total maximum claim of P1,200,000,000.00 as perthe complaint."W/N the suit is a valid class suitNOIn the first place, it is not the rule governing class suits under Section 12, Rule