Davao Light and Power Co., Inc. v. Dinopol
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondent Abundio T. Merced filed an action for damages with preliminary mandatory injunction against petitioner Davao Light and Power Co., Inc. for abruptly disconnecting his electric meter, alleging moral damages, loss of business and credit standing, and loss of profits. In his original and amended complaints, private respondent did not quantify these claims, stating they would be proven at trial or left to the court's discretion, and paid docket fees based only on attorney's fees and expenses of litigation. Procedural History: During hearings, private respondent declared specific amounts for his claims, totaling P8,845,384.50. Petitioner filed motions to require private respondent to pay additional docket fees based on these quantified claims. Respondent Judge Cristeto D. Dinopol denied these motions, reasoning that the determination of filing fees is at the time of filing, and claims can be proven during trial or left to the court's discretion. He also stated it was premature to reassess fees and that any awarded judgment would be subject to a lien for filing fees. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari, contending that the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to require payment of additional docket fees and in failing to resolve the motion for reconsideration, thereby evading his duty to enforce the Rules of Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's motion to require private respondent to pay additional docket fees, considering the requirement for specific allegations of damages. Whether the claims for damages in the complaint were sufficiently alleged for the purpose of determining jurisdiction and assessing docket fees, and the application of the totality rule.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The questioned Order of February 14, 1986, is SET ASIDE. Private respondent is given five (5) days from notice to amend his complaint by specifying the amount of damages sought, or his action will be DISMISSED. The docket clerk shall base the assessment of filing fees on the aggregate amount of the demand. Respondent Judge is ADMONISHED to strictly adhere to the guidelines.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and the requirement for specific allegations of damages: The Supreme Court held that the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to order the re-assessment of filing fees. Rule 11 of the Interim Rules of Court mandates that in actions where jurisdiction depends on the amount involved, the test is the aggregate sum of all money demands, and crucially, "If any demand is for damages in a civil action, the amount thereof must be specifically alleged." This rule was introduced to prevent the pernicious practice of litigants omitting damage specifications to choose their forum or mislead docket clerks. The Court emphasized that any pleading failing to comply with this requirement shall not be accepted nor admitted, or shall otherwise be expunged from the record, as per the ruling in Manchester Development Corporation. On the application of the totality rule and specific allegations for jurisdiction and fees: The Court reiterated the principle that the jurisdiction of the court is determined by the aggregate sum of all money demands, exclusive of interest and costs. For damages, the amount must be specifically alleged. The private respondent's failure to quantify his claims for moral damages, loss of business, and loss of profits in his original and amended complaints, and instead stating they would be proven at trial or left to the court's discretion, contravened Rule 11 of the Interim Rules of Court. This failure meant the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the case by the payment of only P82.50 as filing fees, as the correct assessment should have been based on the total amount of the claims.
Main Doctrine
All claims for damages must be specifically alleged in the complaint for the purpose of determining jurisdiction and assessing docket fees, and failure to comply with this requirement shall result in the non-acceptance or dismissal of the pleading.