Algura vs.

LGU of Naga City

GR No. 150135

Facts:
In 1999, the City of Naga demolished a portion of the house owned by spouses
Antonio and Lorencita Algura for allegedly being a nuisance as the said portion of the
house was allegedly blocking the road right of way.

In September, the spouses then sued Naga for damages arising from the said
demolition (loss of income from boarders), which to the spouses is an illegal demolition.
Simultaneous to their complaint was an ex-parte motion for them to litigate as indigent
litigants. The motion was granted and the spouses were exempted from paying the
required filing fees.

In February 2000, during pre-trial, the City of Naga asked for 5 days within which
to file a Motion to Disqualify Petitioners as Indigent Litigants. Under the Rules of Court
(then Sec. 16, Rule 141), a party may be qualified as a pauper litigant (for those
residing outside Metro Manila) if he submits an affidavit attesting that a.) his gross
monthly income does not exceed P1,500.00 (now not more than double the monthly
minimum wage) and b.) he should not own property with an assessed value of not more
than P18,000.00 (now not more than P300k market value). The City asserted that the
combined income of the Alguras is at least P13,400 which is way beyond the threshold
P1.5k. The City presented as proof Antonios pay slip as a policeman (P10,400) and
Lorencitas estimated income from her sari-sari store. The claim of the spouses that
they were property-less, as proven by the City Assessors Certification, was not disputed
by the City.

The spouses argued that since the boarding house was demolished by the city,
they only relied on the income of Antonio which was barely enough to cover their
familys need like food, shelter, and other basic necessities for them and their family
(they have 6 children).

The judge, however, granted the motion of the City and so the spouses were
disqualified as pauper-litigants. Subsequently, the case filed by the spouses against the
City was dismissed for the spouses failure to pay the required filing fees.

Issue:

Whether or not petitioners Algura should be considered as indigent litigants who

qualify for exemption from paying filing fees.

Held:
 No, there was no hearing on the matter hence the case was remanded back to
the lower court. In this case, the Supreme Court reconciled the provisions of Sec. 21,
Rule 3 and Sec. 19, Rule 141 (then Sec. 16, Rule 141).
Sec. 21, Rule 3, merely provides a general statement that indigent litigants may
not be required to pay the filing fees. On the other hand, Sec. 19, Rule 141 provides the
specific standards that a party must meet before he can be qualified as an indigent
party and thus be exempt from paying the required fees.
If Sec. 19, Rule 141 (in this case, then Sec. 16, Rule 141) is strictly applied, then
the spouses could not qualify because their income exceeds P1.5k, which was the
threshold prior to 2000. But if Sec. 21, Rule 3 is to be applied, the applicant (the
Spouses) should be given a chance in a hearing to satisfy the court that notwithstanding
the evidence presented by the opposing party (Naga), they have no money or property
sufficient and available for food, shelter and other basic necessities for their family, and
are thus, qualified as indigent litigants under said Rule. Therefore, the court should
have conducted a trial in order to let the spouses satisfy the court that indeed the
income theyre having, even though above the P1.5k limit, was not sufficient to cover
food, shelter, and their other basic needs.