Manchester complied but what it did was to lower the amount of claim for

Manchester complied but what it did was to lower the

This preview shows page 12 - 14 out of 22 pages.

Manchester complied but what it did was to lower the amount of claim for damages to P10M. Saidamount was however again not stated in the PRAYER.ISSUE: Whether or not the amended complaint should be admitted.HELD: No. The docket fee, its computation, should be based on the original complaint. A case isdeemed filed only upon payment of the appropriate docket fee regardless of the actual date of filing incourt. Here, since the proper docket fee was not paid for the original complaint, it’s as if there is nocomplaint to speak of. As a consequence, there is no original complaint duly filed which can beamended. So, any subsequent proceeding taken in consideration of the amended complaint is void.Manchester’s defense that this case is primarily an action for specific performance is not merited. TheSupreme Court ruled that based on the allegations and the prayer of the complaint, this case is an actionfor damages and for specific performance. Hence, it is capable of pecuniary estimation.Further, the amount for damages in the original complaint was already provided in the body of thecomplaint. Its omission in the PRAYER clearly constitutes an attempt to evade the payment of the properfiling fees. To stop the happenstance of similar irregularities in the future, the Supreme Court ruled thatfrom this case on, all complaints, petitions, answers and other similar pleadings should specify theamount of damages being prayed for not only in the body of the pleading but also in the prayer, and saiddamages shall be considered in the assessment of the filing fees in any case. Any pleading that fails tocomply with this requirement shall not bib accepted nor admitted, or shall otherwise be expunged fromthe record.G.R. Nos. 79937-38 February 13, 1989SUN INSURANCE OFFICE, LTD., (SIOL), E.B. PHILIPPS and D.J. WARBY,petitioners,vs.
Background image
HON. MAXIMIANO C. ASUNCION, Presiding Judge, Branch 104, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City andMANUEL CHUA UY PO TIONG,respondents.In 1984, Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. was sued by Manuel Tiong before the Quezon City RTC. In the body ofhis complaint, Tiong claimed damages amounting to Php50 million. But said amount was not mentionedin hisprayer.He paid a docket fee of Php210.00 therefor.At that time, courts in Quezon City were being investigated by the Supreme Court for under-assessmentof docket fees. In 1986, Judge Maximiano Asuncion ordered Tiong to amend his complaint so that theproper docket fee may be computed. Tiong complied and in his amended complaint, the body thereofdiscussed a damage amounting to Php44 million but the prayer asked for damages “not less than Php10million”.Based on the “not less than Php10 million” prayer, the clerk of court assessed a docket fee of P39,786.00which Tiong paid.Later, Tiong filed a supplemental complaint where he was asking an additional Php20 million in damages.
Background image
Image of page 14

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 22 pages?

  • Spring '17
  • hia sahs
  • Complaint, Pleading, Trial court

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture