Colarina v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Conrado Colarina alleged ownership of 6,340 hectares of land placed under the compulsory coverage of RA No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law). Seeking compensation, he expressed interest in exchanging his land for assets of the Bicol Sugar Development Corporation (BISUDECO), which were foreclosed by the Philippine National Bank and turned over to the Assets Privatization Trust (APT) for disposition. The APT published the BISUDECO assets for sale at public auction. Petitioner submitted a bid of P270,000,000.00 plus 3% of gross sales for five years, to be paid with his lands covered by RA No. 6657, and prayed for exemption from the 10% cash deposit requirement. His request for exemption was denied, leading to his disqualification from the bidding for failure to post the cash bond. Respondent Bicol Agro-Industrial Producers Cooperative (BAPCI) emerged as the sole qualified bidder, and a deed of sale for the BISUDECO assets was executed in its favor for P160,000,000.00. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a complaint for Cancellation and Annulment of Sale or Award, Mandamus with Preliminary Injunction, Restraining Order and Damages before the RTC of Camarines Sur against APT, Committee on Privatization (COP), Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), and BAPCI. He paid P415.00 as docket fees. Respondent BAPCI argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction due to the insufficient docket fee, which should have been P1,350,850.00 based on petitioner's bid price of P270,000,000.00. The RTC directed petitioner to pay the deficiency. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied, and he was ordered to pay the full legal fees within thirteen days or face dismissal. Petitioner elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via certiorari, which dismissed his petition, holding that the case was capable of pecuniary estimation and the trial court did not err in assessing additional filing fees based on the bid price. The appellate court denied his motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner filed the instant petition for review on certiorari, asserting that his complaint was not capable of pecuniary estimation and thus should not be subject to docket fees based on the value of the BISUDECO assets. He contended that the subject matter was his claim for a better right to the sale or award, not the assets themselves, and that the P200,000.00 claimed as attorney's fees should be the basis for the docket fee.
Issue(s)
Whether the action for cancellation and annulment of sale, mandamus, with preliminary injunction, restraining order, and damages is an action capable of pecuniary estimation. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari when an appeal was allegedly still available.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision of the Court of Appeals sustaining the Order of the Regional Trial Court is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the action is capable of pecuniary estimation: The Court held that the petitioner's amended complaint clearly indicated his primary and ultimate intention was to recover the BISUDECO assets as payment for his landholdings. This was evident from his prayer for the nullification of the sale to BAPCI and his request for the APT, COP, and DAR to "grant, approve, effect and materialize" the swapping of his land with the BISUDECO assets. The petitioner was not merely seeking to rectify a "fishy, disadvantageous... prejudicial" sale but was asking the court to declare him the winning bidder and grant him possession and ownership of the BISUDECO assets, which he himself pegged at P270,000,000.00. Therefore, the case was not beyond pecuniary estimation but rather a simple collection case where the value of the subject property or the amount demanded was pecuniarily determinable. Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in directing the petitioner to complete the payment of the required docket fees based on his bid price. On the issue of the propriety of certiorari: The Court affirmed the appellate court's ruling that certiorari was not the proper remedy. An appeal would still be available should the trial court ultimately dismiss the civil case. The Court reiterated the principle that before certiorari could lie, all available remedies in the trial court must first be exhausted. Thus, the appellate court correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari.
Main Doctrine
An action for annulment of sale and mandamus, where the ultimate objective is to recover possession and ownership of specific assets pegged at a certain monetary value, is an action capable of pecuniary estimation, requiring payment of docket fees based on the value of the subject property.