Chua v. Go
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Benson Chua filed a Complaint for Declaration of Trust and Reconveyance against respondents Spouses Philip L. Go and Diana G. Go, alleging that he entrusted two parcels of land to Philip, his cousin, to be placed under Philip's name in trust for him. When petitioner demanded the transfer of titles, respondents refused. Procedural History: The RTC initially dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The CA reversed and remanded the case. Upon remand, respondents raised issues regarding petitioner's payment of docket fees. The Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC) issued conflicting certifications regarding the amount paid and the correct assessment. The RTC directed petitioner to pay a deficiency of P91,735.40 within 10 days. Petitioner failed to pay, and the RTC dismissed the case for failure to pay the required docket fees. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was denied. The CA affirmed the RTC's dismissal, ruling that jurisdiction had not properly attached due to non-payment and that petitioner evaded payment. The CA also held that the negligence of petitioner's counsel bound him, and service of the order to petitioner was valid. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, arguing that the CA erred in affirming the RTC's dismissal, claiming he paid the deficiency while the case was on appeal and that neither he nor his counsel received a copy of the order directing payment.
Issue(s)
Whether or not the CA erred in affirming the RTC even if petitioner paid the deficiency in the docket fees while the case was pending before the CA. Whether or not the CA erred in affirming the order of the RTC even if neither petitioner nor his counsel received a copy of the order directing petitioner to pay the deficiency in the docket fees.
Ruling
The Supreme Court resolved to DENY the petition and AFFIRMED the Decision dated April 3, 2018, and the Resolution dated December 6, 2018, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 04930. The dismissal of the case by the RTC was deemed proper.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC even if petitioner paid the deficiency in the docket fees while the case was pending before the CA: The Court ruled that while the RTC acquired jurisdiction upon the initial payment of P111,157.60 as docket fees, which was based on the OCC's assessment, the subsequent dismissal of the case was proper. The Court reiterated that the liberal application of rules on payment of docket fees allows payment within a reasonable time, but failure to comply, especially after the deficiency is clarified and the party is given an opportunity to pay, warrants dismissal. In this case, respondents timely raised the issue of docket fees, and the RTC, instead of dismissing outright, sought clarification and granted petitioner time to pay the deficiency. Despite this liberality, petitioner failed to pay. Furthermore, the payment of the deficiency was made only on May 7, 2018, after the CA had already rendered an adverse decision, which the Court found to be too late and not indicative of a consistent willingness to abide by the rules. On the issue of whether the CA erred in affirming the order of the RTC even if neither petitioner nor his counsel received a copy of the order directing petitioner to pay the deficiency in the docket fees: The Court found this argument untenable. While service upon counsel is the general rule when a party is represented, service upon the party himself can be ordered by the court. In this case, the RTC's order explicitly directed petitioner himself to pay the deficiency, and service was intended to ensure his receipt. Moreover, petitioner's counsel, Atty. Zosa, was present in open court when the order was issued and was personally informed of the directive. The Court emphasized that the negligence of a lawyer binds the client, and petitioner failed to provide any justifiable reason why his counsel did not inform him of the court's order. The Court also noted that petitioner did not allege his counsel's negligence, suggesting an attempt to avoid responsibility. The fact that the copies of the order sent to petitioner's addresses were returned as undelivered due to his having moved, without him notifying the court of his change of address, further weakened his claim.
Main Doctrine
While the payment of docket fees is jurisdictional, the RTC acquires jurisdiction upon initial payment assessed by the clerk of court, even if deficient. However, failure to pay the deficiency assessment within the period granted by the court, especially when due to the negligence of counsel, warrants dismissal of the case.