Ng Soon v. Alday
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Ng Soon, claiming to be the widow of Gan Bun Yaw, filed a complaint against China Banking Corporation (CBC) and Billie T. Gan for the reconstitution of a savings account (No. 17591-2) allegedly maintained by Gan Bun Yaw with CBC, containing P900,000.00 more or less. Petitioner alleged that the account was closed by CBC on December 8, 1988, and that Billie T. Gan colluded with CBC officials to withdraw the funds by forging Gan Bun Yaw's signature while he was in a comatose state. Procedural History: Petitioner paid P3,600.00 as docket fees. Respondents moved for dismissal. Subsequently, respondents moved to expunge the complaint for alleged non-payment of required docket fees. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Quezon City, per respondent Judge Aloysius Alday, ordered the complaint expunged and the case dismissed, citing the ruling in Manchester Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals. A motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioner sought review via certiorari, arguing that the Manchester doctrine was incorrectly applied and that the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the expungement despite payment of fees. A manifestation was filed by respondent Gan alleging petitioner was an impostor, which petitioner denied.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge gravely abused his discretion in ordering the expungement of the complaint for alleged non-payment of docket fees, and whether the doctrine in Manchester Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals was correctly applied by the respondent Judge regarding the ascertainability of damages and demonstration of good faith. Whether the issue of the petitioner's identity falls within the competence of the court a quo.
Ruling
The Petition is granted. The assailed Orders of the respondent Judge dated August 11, 1988, and October 21, 1988, are SET ASIDE. The respondent Judge is directed to reinstate Civil Case No. Q-52489 for determination and proper disposition.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged non-payment of docket fees and the application of the Manchester doctrine, ascertainability of damages, and demonstration of good faith: The Court found that the respondent Judge incorrectly applied the Manchester doctrine. While Manchester requires that damages be specified in the complaint and prayer for the assessment of filing fees, the petitioner's complaint did specify amounts. The prayer for moral and exemplary damages was for "not less than P50,000.00," and attorney's fees were specified as "twenty percent payable to her." These amounts, though minimums, were definite enough to allow the Clerk of Court to compute the docket fees. The principal amount of P900,000.00 was also stated. The failure to state the interest rate was not fatal, as Rule 141, Section 5(a) of the Rules of Court, in itemizing filing fees, speaks of "the sum claimed, exclusive of interest." Therefore, the sums claimed were ascertainable enough for computation. The Court clarified that the amounts claimed need not be stated with mathematical precision. Rule 141, Section 5(a) (third paragraph) allows for an appraisal "more or less," contemplating situations where the amount proved may differ from the amount claimed, leading to refunds or additional payments. This provision indicates that the initial payment of fees is based on an estimated amount, subject to adjustment. The sums claimed in the complaint were ascertainable and sufficient for the computation of docket fees under Rule 141, Section 5(a). The Court noted that the pattern in Manchester to defraud the government of docket fees was absent in this case. Petitioner paid the assessed docket fee of P3,600.00 and even asked the lower court to inform her of any deficiency, which the court did not do. This demonstrated a willingness to abide by the rules. Furthermore, in Sun Insurance Office Ltd. v. Asuncion, the Court had already relaxed the Manchester rule, holding that the court may allow payment of the docket fee within a reasonable time, but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period, emphasizing that it is the payment of the fee, not just the filing of the pleading, that vests jurisdiction. On the identity of the petitioner: The Court held that the issue of the petitioner's identity was a matter falling within the competence of the court a quo, as the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. This issue was to be determined by the trial court upon reinstatement of the case.
Main Doctrine
The Court reiterated that while docket fees must be paid, the strict application of the Manchester doctrine, which mandates the immediate expungement of a complaint for non-payment or underpayment of docket fees, may be relaxed, especially when the amounts claimed are ascertainable and the petitioner demonstrates willingness to pay, as further clarified in Sun Insurance Office Ltd. v. Asuncion.