Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 75919 May 7, 1987
MANCHESTER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL., petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, CITY LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, STEPHEN ROXAS, ANDRE
LUISON, GRACE LUISON a!" #OSE DE MAISIP, respondents.
Tanjuatco, Oreta and Tanjuatco for petitioners.
Pecabar Law Offices for private respondents.
R E S O L ! " O N

GANCAYCO, J.:
Actin# on the $otion for reconsideration of the resolution of the Second %ivision of &anuar' (),*+), and
another $otion to refer the case to and to be heard in oral ar#u$ent b' the Court En Banc filed b' petitioners,
the $otion to refer the case to the Court en banc is #ranted but the $otion to set the case for oral ar#u$ent is
denied.
Petitioners in support of their contention that the filin# fee $ust be assessed on the basis of the a$ended
co$plaint cite the case of Magaspi vs. Ramolete. 1 !he' contend that the Court of Appeals erred in that the
filin# fee should be levied b' considerin# the a$ount of da$a#es sou#ht in the ori#inal co$plaint.
!he environ$ental facts of said case differ fro$ the present in that -
*. !he Ma#aspi case .as an action for recover' of o.nership and possession of a parcel of land .ith
da$a#es. $/hile the present case is an action for torts and da$a#es and specific perfor$ance .ith pra'er
for te$porar' restrainin# order, etc. %
(. "n the Ma#aspi case, the pra'er in the co$plaint see0s not onl' the annul$ent of title of the defendant to the
propert', the declaration of o.nership and deliver' of possession thereof to plaintiffs but also as0s for the
pa'$ent of actual $oral, e1e$plar' da$a#es and attorne'2s fees arisin# therefro$ in the a$ounts specified
therein. & 3o.ever, in the present case, the pra'er is for the issuance of a .rit of preli$inar' prohibitor'
in4unction durin# the pendenc' of the action a#ainst the defendants2 announced forfeiture of the su$ of P5
Million paid b' the plaintiffs for the propert' in 6uestion, to attach such propert' of defendants that $a'be
sufficient to satisf' an' 4ud#$ent that $a'be rendered, and after hearin#, to order defendants to e1ecute a
contract of purchase and sale of the sub4ect propert' and annul defendants2 ille#al forfeiture of the $one' of
plaintiff, orderin# defendants 4ointl' and severall' to pa' plaintiff actual, co$pensator' and e1e$plar' da$a#es
as .ell as (78 of said a$ounts as $a'be proved durin# the trial as attorne'2s fees and declarin# the tender of
pa'$ent of the purchase price of plaintiff valid and producin# the effect of pa'$ent and to $a0e the in4unction
per$anent. !he a$ount of da$a#es sou#ht is not specified in the pra'er althou#h the bod' of the co$plaint
alle#es the total a$ount of over P,) Million as da$a#es suffered b' plaintiff. 5
5. pon the filin# of the co$plaint there .as an honest difference of opinion as to the nature of the action in the
Ma#aspi case. !he co$plaint .as considered as pri$aril' an action for recover' of o.nership and possession
of a parcel of land. !he da$a#es stated .ere treated as $erel' to the $ain cause of action. !hus, the doc0et
fee of onl' P9:.:: and P*:.:: for the sheriff2s fee .ere paid. '
"n the present case there can be no such honest difference of opinion. As $a'be #leaned fro$ the alle#ations
of the co$plaint as .ell as the desi#nation thereof, it is both an action for da$a#es and specific perfor$ance.
!he doc0et fee paid upon filin# of co$plaint in the a$ount onl' of P;*:.:: b' considerin# the action to be
$erel' one for specific perfor$ance .here the a$ount involved is not capable of pecuniar' esti$ation is
obviousl' erroneous. Althou#h the total a$ount of da$a#es sou#ht is not stated in the pra'er of the co$plaint
'et it is spelled out in the bod' of the co$plaint totallin# in the a$ount of P,),,7:,:::.:: .hich should be the
basis of assess$ent of the filin# fee.
;. /hen this under<re assess$ent of the filin# fee in this case .as brou#ht to the attention of this Court
to#ether .ith si$ilar other cases an investi#ation .as i$$ediatel' ordered b' the Court. Mean.hile plaintiff
throu#h another counsel .ith leave of court filed an a$ended co$plaint on Septe$ber *(, *+)7 for the
inclusion of Philips /ire and Cable Corporation as co<plaintiff and b' e$anatin# an' $ention of the a$ount of
da$a#es in the bod' of the co$plaint. !he pra'er in the ori#inal co$plaint .as $aintained. After this Court
issued an order on October *7, *+)7 orderin# the re< assess$ent of the doc0et fee in the present case and
other cases that .ere investi#ated, on Nove$ber *(, *+)7 the trial court directed plaintiffs to rectif' the
a$ended co$plaint b' statin# the a$ounts .hich the' are as0in# for. "t .as onl' then that plaintiffs specified
the a$ount of da$a#es in the bod' of the co$plaint in the reduced a$ount of P*:,:::,:::.::. 7 Still no
a$ount of da$a#es .ere specified in the pra'er. Said a$ended co$plaint .as ad$itted.
On the other hand, in the Ma#aspi case, the trial court ordered the plaintiffs to pa' the a$ount of P5,*:;.:: as
filin# fee coverin# the da$a#es alle#ed in the ori#inal co$plaint as it did not consider the da$a#es to be
$erel' an or incidental to the action for recover' of o.nership and possession of real propert'. 8 An a$ended
co$plaint .as filed b' plaintiff .ith leave of court to include the #overn$ent of the Republic as defendant and
reducin# the a$ount of da$a#es, and attorne'2s fees pra'ed for to P*::,:::.::. Said a$ended co$plaint .as
also ad$itted. 9
"n the Ma#aspi case, the action .as considered not onl' one for recover' of o.nership but also for da$a#es,
so that the filin# fee for the da$a#es should be the basis of assess$ent. Althou#h the pa'$ent of the
doc0etin# fee of P9:.:: .as found to be insufficient, nevertheless, it .as held that since the pa'$ent .as the
result of an =honest difference of opinion as to the correct a$ount to be paid as doc0et fee= the court =had
ac6uired 4urisdiction over the case and the proceedin#s thereafter had .ere proper and re#ular.= 1( 3ence, as
the a$ended co$plaint superseded the ori#inal co$plaint, the alle#ations of da$a#es in the a$ended
co$plaint should be the basis of the co$putation of the filin# fee. 11
"n the present case no such honest difference of opinion .as possible as the alle#ations of the co$plaint, the
desi#nation and the pra'er sho. clearl' that it is an action for da$a#es and specific perfor$ance. !he
doc0etin# fee should be assessed b' considerin# the a$ount of da$a#es as alle#ed in the ori#inal co$plaint.
As reiterated in the Ma#aspi case the rule is .ell<settled =that a case is dee$ed filed onl' upon pa'$ent of the
doc0et fee re#ardless of the actual date of filin# in court . 1$ !hus, in the present case the trial court did not
ac6uire 4urisdiction over the case b' the pa'$ent of onl' P;*:.:: as doc0et fee. Neither can the a$end$ent of
the co$plaint thereb' vest 4urisdiction upon the Court. 1% >or an le#al purposes there is no such ori#inal
co$plaint that .as dul' filed .hich could be a$ended. Conse6uentl', the order ad$ittin# the a$ended
co$plaint and all subse6uent proceedin#s and actions ta0en b' the trial court are null and void.
!he Court of Appeals therefore, aptl' ruled in the present case that the basis of assess$ent of the doc0et fee
should be the a$ount of da$a#es sou#ht in the ori#inal co$plaint and not in the a$ended co$plaint.
!he Court cannot close this case .ithout $a0in# the observation that it fro.ns at the practice of counsel .ho
filed the ori#inal co$plaint in this case of o$ittin# an' specification of the a$ount of da$a#es in the pra'er
althou#h the a$ount of over P,) $illion is alle#ed in the bod' of the co$plaint. !his is clearl' intended for no
other purpose than to evade the pa'$ent of the correct filin# fees if not to $islead the doc0et cler0 in the
assess$ent of the filin# fee. !his fraudulent practice .as co$pounded .hen, even as this Court had ta0en
co#ni?ance of the ano$al' and ordered an investi#ation, petitioner throu#h another counsel filed an a$ended
co$plaint, deletin# all $ention of the a$ount of da$a#es bein# as0ed for in the bod' of the co$plaint. "t .as
onl' .hen in obedience to the order of this Court of October *), *+)7, the trial court directed that the a$ount of
da$a#es be specified in the a$ended co$plaint, that petitioners2 counsel .rote the da$a#es sou#ht in the
$uch reduced a$ount of P*:,:::,:::.:: in the bod' of the co$plaint but not in the pra'er thereof. !he desi#n
to avoid pa'$ent of the re6uired doc0et fee is obvious.
!he Court serves .arnin# that it .ill ta0e drastic action upon a repetition of this unethical practice.
!o put a stop to this irre#ularit', henceforth all co$plaints, petitions, ans.ers and other si$ilar pleadin#s should
specif' the a$ount of da$a#es bein# pra'ed for not onl' in the bod' of the pleadin# but also in the pra'er, and
said da$a#es shall be considered in the assess$ent of the filin# fees in an' case. An' pleadin# that fails to
co$pl' .ith this re6uire$ent shall not bib accepted nor ad$itted, or shall other.ise be e1pun#ed fro$ the
record.
!he Court ac6uires 4urisdiction over an' case onl' upon the pa'$ent of the prescribed doc0et fee. An
a$end$ent of the co$plaint or si$ilar pleadin# .ill not thereb' vest 4urisdiction in the Court, $uch less the
pa'$ent of the doc0et fee based on the a$ounts sou#ht in the a$ended pleadin#. !he rulin# in the Ma#aspi
case 1& in so far as it is inconsistent .ith this pronounce$ent is overturned and reversed.
/3ERE>ORE, the $otion for reconsideration is denied for lac0 of $erit.
SO OR%ERE%.
Teean!ee, ".#., $ap, %ernan, &arvasa, Melencio'(errera, )utierre*, #r., "ru*, Paras, %eliciano, Bidin,
+armiento and "ortes, ##., concur.
Paras, #., too! no part.

Foo)!o)*+
* **7 SCRA *+5.
( +upra, p. *+;.
5 P. 9;, Rollo.
; Ma#aspi vs. Ra$olete, supra, pp. **;<**7.
7 Pp. 97<99, Rollo.
9 Ma#aspi case, supra, p. *+;. Pp.
, *(*<*((, Rollo.
) Ma#aspi vs. Ra$olete, supra, pp. *++<(::.
+ Pp. (:*<(:(, Rollo.
*: +upra, **7 SCRA (:;<(:7.
** +upra, **7 SCRA (:7.
*( +upra,**7 SCRA (:;, citin# Mali$it vs. %e#a$o, @.R.No. L<*,)7:, Nov. (), *+9;, *(
SCRA ;7:, *(: Phil *(;,A Lee vs. Republic, L<*7:(,, &an 5*, *+9;, *: SCRA 97.
*5 @aspar vs. %orado, L<*,));, Nove$ber (+,*+97 *7 SCRA 55*A !a$a'o vs. San Mi#uel
Bre.er',@.R.No. L<*,;;+, &anuar' 5:, *+9;A Rosario vs. Carandan#, +9 Phil );7A Ca$pos
Rueda Corp. vs. 3on. &ud#e Bautista, et al., @.R. No. L<*);7(, Sept. (+, *+9(
*; +upra.
>AC!SB
!his .as ori#inall' a case of an action for torts and da$a#es and specific perfor$ance
.ith a pra'er for te$porar' restrainin# order. !he da$a#es .ere not specificall' stated
in the pra'er but the bod' of the co$plaint assessed a P ,).,7 M. da$a#es suffered b'
the petitioner. !he a$ount of doc0et fee paid .as onl' P;*:.::. !he petitioner then
a$ended the co$plaint and reduced the da$a#es to *: M onl'.
"SSESB
/hen does a court ac6uire 4urisdictionC%oes an a$ended co$plaint vest 4urisdiction in
the courtC
3EL%B
!he court ac6uires 4urisdiction over an' case onl' upon the pa'$ent of the prescribed
doc0et fee. An a$end$ent of the co$plaint or si$ilar pleadin# .ill not vest 4urisdiction
in the court, $uch less the pa'$ent of the doc0et fee based on the a$ounts sou#ht in
the a$ended pleadin#. All co$plaints, petitions, ans.ers and other si$ilar pleadin#s
should specif' the a$ount of da$a#es bein# pra'ed for. %a$a#es shall be considered
in the assess$ent of the filin# fees in an' case.
=!he Court finds $erit in the petition.
!he rule is that pa'$ent in full of the doc0et fees .ithin the prescribed period is
$andator'.D)E "n Manchester v. Court of Appeals,D+E it .as held that a court ac6uires
4urisdiction over an' case onl' upon the pa'$ent of the prescribed doc0et fee. !he strict
application of this rule .as, ho.ever, rela1ed t.o F(G 'ears after in the case of Sun
"nsurance Office, Ltd. v. Asuncion,D*:E.herein the Court decreed that .here the
initiator' pleadin# is not acco$panied b' the pa'$ent of the doc0et fee, the court $a'
allo. pa'$ent of the fee .ithin a reasonable period of ti$e, but in no case be'ond the
applicable prescriptive or re#le$entar' period. !his rulin# .as $ade on the pre$ise
that the plaintiff had de$onstrated his .illin#ness to abide b' the rules b' pa'in# the
additional doc0et fees re6uired.D**E !hus, in the $ore recent case of nited Overseas
Ban0 v. Ros,D*(E the Court e1plained that .here the part' does not deliberatel' intend to
defraud the court in pa'$ent of doc0et fees, and $anifests its .illin#ness to abide b'
the rules b' pa'in# additional doc0et fees .hen re6uired b' the court, the liberal
doctrine enunciated in Sun "nsurance Office, Ltd., and not the strict re#ulations set in
Manchester, .ill appl'. "t has been on record that the Court, in several instances,
allo.ed the rela1ation of the rule on non<pa'$ent of doc0et fees in order to afford the
parties the opportunit' to full' ventilate their cases on the $erits. "n the case of La
Salette Colle#e v. Pilotin,D*5E the Court statedB
Not.ithstandin# the $andator' nature of the re6uire$ent of pa'$ent of appellate
doc0et fees, .e also reco#ni?e that its strict application is 6ualified b' the follo.in#B first,
failure to pa' those fees .ithin the re#le$entar' period allo.s onl' discretionar', not
auto$atic, dis$issalA second, such po.er should be used b' the court in con4unction
.ith its e1ercise of sound discretion in accordance .ith the tenets of 4ustice and fair
pla', as .ell as .ith a #reat deal of circu$spection in consideration of all attendant
circu$stances.D*;E
/hile there is a cr'in# need to unclo# court doc0ets on the one hand, there is, on the
other, a #reater de$and for resolvin# #enuine disputes fairl' and e6uitabl',D*7E for it is
far better to dispose of a case on the $erit .hich is a pri$ordial end, rather than on a
technicalit' that $a' result in in4ustice.
"n this case, it cannot be denied that the case .as liti#ated before the R!C and said trial
court had alread' rendered a decision. /hile it .as at that level, the $atter of non<
pa'$ent of doc0et fees .as never an issue. "t .as onl' the CA .hich $otu propio
dis$issed the case for said reason.
Considerin# the fore#oin#, there is a need to suspend the strict application of the rules
so that the petitioners .ould be able to full' and finall' prosecute their clai$ on the
$erits at the appellate level rather than fail to secure 4ustice on a technicalit', for,
indeed, the #eneral ob4ective of procedure is to facilitate the application of 4ustice to the
rival clai$s of contendin# parties, bearin# al.a's in $ind that procedure is not to hinder
but to pro$ote the ad$inistration of 4ustice.D*9E
!he Court also ta0es into account the fact that the case .as filed before the Manchester
rulin# ca$e out. Even if said rulin# could be applied retroactivel', liberalit' should be
accorded to the petitioners in vie. of the recenc' then of the rulin#. Lenienc' because
of recenc' .as applied to the cases of >ar Eastern Shippin# Co$pan' v. Court of
AppealsD*,E and Spouses &i$$' and Patri Chan v. R!C of Ha$boan#a.D*)E "n the case
of Mactan Cebu "nternational Airport Authorit' v. Man#ubat FMactanG,D*+E it .as stated
that the Iintent of the Court is clear to afford liti#ants full opportunit' to co$pl' .ith the
ne. rules and to te$per enforce$ent of sanctions in vie. of the recenc' of the chan#es
introduced b' the ne. rules.J "n Mactan, the Office of the Solicitor @eneral FOS@G also
failed to pa' the correct doc0et fees on ti$e.
/e held in another caseB
1 1 1 "t bears stressin# that the rules of procedure are $erel' tools desi#ned to facilitate
the attain$ent of 4ustice. !he' .ere conceived and pro$ul#ated to effectivel' aid the
court in the dispensation of 4ustice. Courts are not slaves to or robots of technical rules,
shorn of 4udicial discretion. "n renderin# 4ustice, courts have al.a's been, as the' ou#ht
to be, conscientiousl' #uided b' the nor$ that, on the balance, technicalities ta0e a
bac0seat a#ainst substantive ri#hts, and not the other .a' around. !hus, if the
application of the Rules .ould tend to frustrate rather than pro$ote 4ustice, it is al.a's
.ithin the po.er of the Court to suspend the Rules, or e1cept a particular case fro$ its
operation.D(:E
!he petitioners, ho.ever, are liable for the difference bet.een the actual fees paid and
the correct pa'able doc0et fees to be assessed b' the cler0 of court .hich shall
constitute a lien on the 4ud#$ent pursuant to Section ( of Rule *;* .hich providesB
SEC. (. >ees in lien. K /here the court in its final 4ud#$ent a.ards a clai$ not alle#ed,
or a relief different fro$, or $ore than that clai$ed in the pleadin#, the part' concerned
shall pa' the additional fees .hich shall constitute a lien on the 4ud#$ent in satisfaction
of said lien. !he cler0 of court shall assess and collect the correspondin# fees.
As the Court has ta0en the position that it .ould be #rossl' un4ust if petitionersL clai$
.ould be dis$issed on a strict application of the Manchester doctrine, the appropriate
action, under ordinar' circu$stances, .ould be for the Court to re$and the case to the
CA. Considerin#, ho.ever, that the case at bench has been pendin# for $ore than 5:
'ears and the records thereof are alread' before this Court, a re$and of the case to the
CA .ould onl' unnecessaril' prolon# its resolution. "n the hi#her interest of substantial
4ustice and to spare the parties fro$ further dela', the Court .ill resolve the case on the
$erits.=