THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 151242. June 15, 2005.]

PROTON PILIPINAS CORPORATION, AUTOMOTIVE PHILIPPINES,
ASEA ONE CORPORATION and AUTOCORP, petitioners, vs.
BANQUE NATIONALE DE PARIS, 1 respondent.
DECISION
CARPIO MORALES, J :
p

It appears that sometime in 1995, petitioner Proton Pilipinas Corporation (Proton)

availed of the credit facilities of herein respondent, Banque Nationale de Paris
(BNP). To guarantee the payment of its obligation, its co-petitioners Automotive
Corporation Philippines (Automotive), Asea One Corporation (Asea) and Autocorp
Group (Autocorp) executed a corporate guarantee 2 to the extent of
US$2,000,000.00. BNP and Proton subsequently entered into three trust receipt
agreements dated June 4, 1996, 3 January 14, 1997, 4 and April 24, 1997. 5
Under the terms of the trust receipt agreements, Proton would receive imported
passenger motor vehicles and hold them in trust for BNP. Proton would be free to
sell the vehicles subject to the condition that it would deliver the proceeds of the
sale to BNP, to be applied to its obligations to it. In case the vehicles are not sold,
Proton would return them to BNP, together with all the accompanying documents
of title.
Allegedly, Proton failed to deliver the proceeds of the sale and return the unsold
motor vehicles.
Pursuant to the corporate guarantee, BNP demanded from Automotive, Asea and
Autocorp the payment of the amount of US$1,544,984.40 6 representing Proton's
total outstanding obligations. These guarantors refused to pay, however. Hence,
BNP led on September 7, 1998 before the Makati Regional Trial Court (RTC) a
complaint against petitioners praying that they be ordered to pay (1)
US$1,544,984.40 plus accrued interest and other related charges thereon
subsequent to August 15, 1998 until fully paid and (2) an amount equivalent to 5%
of all sums due from petitioners as attorney's fees.
The Makati RTC Clerk of Court assessed the docket fees which BNP paid at
P352,116.30 7 which was computed as follows: 8
First Cause of Action
Second Cause of Action
Third Cause of Action

$844,674.07
171,120.53
529,189.80


$1,544,984.40
5% as Attorney's Fees

$77,249.22

TOTAL

$1,622,233.62

Conversion rate to peso

43

TOTAL

P69,756,000.00 (round-off)

Computation based on Rule 141:

COURT

JDF

P69,756,000.00
-

150,000.00

69,606,000.00
x

.002

.003

208,818.00

139,212.00
+

P69,606,000.00

450.00

P209,268.00

150.00

P139,362.00

LEGAL: P139,362.00
+ 209,268.00

P348,630.00 x 1% = P3,486.30
P139,362.00
+ 209,268.00
3,486.00

P352,116.30 Total fees paid by the plaintiff

To the complaint, the defendants-herein petitioners led on October 12, 1998 a

Motion to Dismiss 9 on the ground that BNP failed to pay the correct docket fees to
thus prevent the trial court from acquiring jurisdiction over the case. 10 As additional
ground, petitioners raised prematurity of the complaint, BNP not having priorly sent
any demand letter. 11
By Order 12 of August 3, 1999, Branch 148 of the Makati RTC denied petitioners'
Motion to Dismiss, viz:
Resolving the rst ground relied upon by the defendant, this court believes
and so hold that the docket fees were properly paid. It is the Oce of the
Clerk of Court of this station that computes the correct docket fees, and it is
their duty to assess the docket fees correctly, which they did.
EICSTa

Even granting arguendo that the docket fees were not properly paid, the
court cannot just dismiss the case. The Court has not yet ordered (and it will
not in this case) to pay the correct docket fees, thus the Motion to dismiss
is premature, aside from being without any legal basis.
As held in the case of National Steel Corporation vs. CA, G.R. No. 123215,
February 2, 1999, the Supreme Court said:
xxx xxx xxx
Although the payment of the proper docket fees is a jurisdictional
requirement, the trial court may allow the plainti in an action to pay
the same within a reasonable time within the expiration of applicable
prescription or reglementary period. If the plainti fails to comply with
this requirement, the defendant should timely raise the issue of
jurisdiction or else he would be considered in estoppel. In the latter
case, the balance between appropriate docket fees and the amount
actually paid by the plainti will be considered a lien or (sic) any award
he may obtain in his favor.
As to the second ground relied upon by the defendants, in that a review of
all annexes to the complaint of the plainti reveals that there is not a single
formal demand letter for defendants to fulll the terms and conditions of the
three (3) trust agreements.
In this regard, the court cannot sustain the submission of defendant. As
correctly pointed out by the plaintiff, failure to make a formal demand for the
debtor to pay the plaintiff is not among the legal grounds for the dismissal of
the case. Anyway, in the appreciation of the court, this is simply evidentiary.
xxx xxx xxx
WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the Motion to Dismiss interposed by the
defendants is hereby DENIED. 13 (Underscoring supplied)

Petitioners led a motion for reconsideration 14 of the denial of their Motion to

Dismiss, but it was denied by the trial court by Order 15 of October 3, 2000.
Petitioners thereupon brought the case on certiorari and mandamus 16 to the Court
of Appeals which, by Decision 17 of July 25, 2001, denied it in this wise:
. . . Section 7(a) of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court excludes interest accruing
from the principal amount being claimed in the pleading in the computation
of the prescribed ling fees. The complaint was submitted for the
computation of the ling fee to the Oce of the Clerk of Court of the
Regional Trial Court of Makati City which made an assessment that
respondent paid accordingly. What the Oce of the Clerk of Court did and
the ruling of the respondent Judge nd support in the decisions of the
Supreme Court in Ng Soon vs. Alday and Tacay vs. RTC of Tagum, Davao del
Norte. In the latter case, the Supreme Court explicitly ruled that "where the
action is purely for recovery of money or damages, the docket fees are
assessed on the basis of the aggregate amount claimed, exclusive only of
interests and costs."
Assuming arguendo that the correct ling fees was not made, the rule is
that the court may allow a reasonable time for the payment of the
prescribed fees, or the balance thereof, and upon such payment, the defect
is cured and the court may properly take cognizance of the action unless in
the meantime prescription has set in and consequently barred the right of
action. Here respondent Judge did not make any nding, and rightly so, that
the filing fee paid by private respondent was insufficient.
On the issue of the correct dollar-peso rate of exchange, the Oce of the
Clerk of Court of the RTC of Makati pegged it at P43.21 to US$1. In the
absence of any oce guide of the rate of exchange which said court
functionary was duty bound to follow, the rate he applied is presumptively
correct.
THADEI

Respondent Judge correctly ruled that the matter of demand letter is

evidentiary and does not form part of the required allegations in a complaint.
Section 1, Rule 8 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure pertinently provides:
"Every pleading shall contain in a methodical and logical form, a plain,
concise and direct statement of the ultimate facts on which the party
pleading relies for his claim or defense, as the case may be, omitted
the statement of mere evidentiary facts."
Judging from the allegations of the complaint particularly paragraphs 6, 12,
18, and 23 where allegations of imputed demands were made upon the
defendants to fulll their respective obligations, annexing the demand letters
for the purpose of putting up a sufficient cause of action is not required.
In ne, respondent Judge committed no grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction to warrant certiorari and
mandamus . 18 (Underscoring supplied)

Their Motion for Reconsideration 19 having been denied by the Court of Appeals, 20
petitioners led the present petition for review on certiorari 21 and pray for the
following reliefs:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, it is most respectfully prayed of
this Honorable Court to grant the instant petition by REVERSING and
SETTING ASIDE the questioned Decision of July 25, 2001 and the Resolution
of December 18, 2001 for being contrary to law, to Administrative Circular
No. 11-94 and Circular No. 7 and instead direct the court a quo to require
Private Respondent Banque to pay the correct docket fee pursuant to the
correct exchange rate of the dollar to the peso on September 7, 1998 and
to quantify its claims for interests on the principal obligations in the rst,
second and third causes of actions in its Complaint in Civil Case No. 982180. 22 (Underscoring supplied)

Citing Administrative Circular No. 11-94, 23 petitioners argue that BNP failed to pay
the correct docket fees as the said circular provides that in the assessment thereof,
interest claimed should be included. There being an underpayment of the docket
fees, petitioners conclude, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the case.
Additionally, petitioners point out that the clerk of court, in converting BNP's claims
from US dollars to Philippine pesos, applied the wrong exchange rate of US $1 =
P43.00, the exchange rate on September 7, 1998 when the complaint was led
having been pegged at US $1 = P43.21. Thus, by petitioners' computation, BNP's
claim as of August 15, 1998 was actually P70,096,714.72, 24 not P69,756,045.66.

Furthermore, petitioners submit that pursuant to Supreme Court Circular No. 7, 25

the complaint should have been dismissed for failure to specify the amount of
interest in the prayer.
Circular No. 7 reads:
TO:

JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT OF THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS,

REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS IN
CITIES, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL
COURTS, SHARI'A DISTRICT COURTS; AND THE INTEGRATED
BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUBJECT:

ALL COMPLAINTS MUST SPECIFY AMOUNT OF

DAMAGES SOUGHT NOT ONLY IN THE BODY OF THE
PLEADING, BUT ALSO IN THE PRAYER IN ORDER TO BE
ACCEPTED AND ADMITTED FOR FILING. THE AMOUNT OF
DAMAGES SO SPECIFIED IN THE COMPLAINT SHALL BE THE
BASIS FOR ASSESSING THE AMOUNT OF THE FILING FEES.
IaEHSD

In Manchester Development Corporation vs. Court of Appeals , No. L-75919,

May 7, 1987, 149 SCRA 562, this Court condemned the practice of counsel
who in ling the original complaint omitted from the prayer any specication

of the amount of damages although the amount of over P78 million is

alleged in the body of the complaint. This Court observed that "(T)his is
clearly intended for no other purpose than to evade the payment of the
correct ling fees if not to mislead the docket clerk, in the assessment of the
ling fee. This fraudulent practice was compounded when, even as this
Court had taken cognizance of the anomaly and ordered an investigation,
petitioner through another counsel led an amended complaint, deleting all
mention of the amount of damages being asked for in the body of the
complaint. . . ."
For the guidance of all concerned, the WARNING given by the court in the
afore-cited case is reproduced hereunder:
"The Court serves warning that it will take drastic action upon a
repetition of this unethical practice.
To put a stop to this irregularity, henceforth all complaints, petitions,
answers and other similar pleadings should specify the amount of
damages being prayed for not only in the body of the
pleading but also in the prayer, and said damages shall be
considered in the assessment of the ling fees in any case.
Any pleading that fails to comply with this requirement shall
not be accepted nor admitted, or shall otherwise be
expunged from the record.
The Court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment
of the prescribed docket fee. An amendment of the complaint or
similar pleading will not thereby vest jurisdiction in the Court, much
less the payment of the docket fee based on the amount sought in
the amended pleading. The ruling in the Magaspi case (115 SCRA 193)
in so far as it is inconsistent with this pronouncement is overturned
and reversed."
Strict compliance with this Circular is hereby enjoined.
Let this be circularized to all the courts hereinabove named and to the
President and Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
which is hereby directed to disseminate this Circular to all its members.
March 24, 1988.
(Sgd). CLAUDIO TEEHANKEE
Chief Justice
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

On the other hand, respondent maintains that it had paid the ling fee which was
assessed by the clerk of court, and that there was no violation of Supreme Court
Circular No. 7 because the amount of damages was clearly specified in the prayer, to
wit:

2.

On the FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(c)
Defendant PROTON be ordered to pay the sum of (i) US DOLLARS
EIGHT HUNDRED FORTY FOUR THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED SEVENTY FOUR
AND SEVEN CENTS (US$ 844,674.07), plus accrued interests and other
related charges thereon subsequent to August 15, 1998, until fully paid; and
(ii) an amount equivalent to 5% of all sums due from said Defendant, as and
for attorney's fees;
3.

On the SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(d)
Defendant PROTON be ordered to pay the sum of (i) US DOLLARS
ONE HUNDRED TWENTY AND FIFTY THREE CENTS (US$171,120.53), plus
accrued interests and other related charges thereon subsequent to August
15, 1998 until fully paid; and (ii) an amount equivalent to 5% of all sums due
from said Defendant, as and for attorney's fees;
DHAcET

4.

On the THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(e)
Defendant PROTON be ordered to pay the sum of (i) US DOLLARS
FIVE HUNDRED TWENTY NINE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY NINE
AND EIGHTY CENTS (US$529,189.80), plus accrued interests and other
related charges thereon subsequent to August 15, 1998 until fully paid; and
(ii) an amount equivalent to 5% or all sums due from said Defendant, as and
for attorney's fees;
5.

On ALL THE CAUSES OF ACTION

Defendants AUTOMOTIVE CORPORATION PHILIPPINES, ASEA ONE

CORPORATION and AUTOCORP GROUP to be ordered to pay Plainti BNP
the aggregate sum of (i) US DOLLARS ONE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED FORTY
FOUR THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED EIGHTY FOUR AND FORTY CENTS
(US$1,544,984.40) (First through Third Causes of Action), plus accrued
interest and other related charges thereon subsequent to August 15, 1998
until fully paid; and (ii) an amount equivalent to 5% of all sums due from said
Defendants, as and for attorney's fees. 26

Moreover, respondent posits that the amount of US$1,544,984.40 represents not

only the principal but also interest and other related charges which had accrued as
of August 15, 1998. Respondent goes even further by suggesting that in light of
Tacay v. Regional Trial Court of Tagum, Davao del Norte 27 where the Supreme
Court held,
Where the action is purely for the recovery of money or damages, the
docket fees are assessed on the basis of the aggregate amount
claimed, exclusive only of interests and costs. 28 (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied),

it made an overpayment.
When Tacay was decided in 1989, the pertinent rule applicable was Section 5 (a) of

Rule 141 which provided for the following:

SEC. 5.
Clerks of Regional Trial Courts. (a) For ling an action or
proceeding, or a permissive counter-claim or cross-claim not arising out of
the same transaction subject of the complaint, a third-party complaint and a
complaint in intervention and for all services in the same, if the sum
claimed, exclusive of interest, of the value of the property in
litigation, or the value of the estate, is:
1.

Less than P5,000.00

2.

P5,000.00 or more but less than P10,000.00

3.

P10,000.00 or more but less than P20,000.00

64.00

4.

P20,000.00 or more but less than P40,000.00

80.00

5.

P40,000.00 or more but less than P60,000.00

120.00

6.

P60,000.00 or more but less than P80,000.00

160.00

7.

P80,000.00 or more but less than P150,000.00

8.

And for each P1,000.00 in excess of P150,000.00

9.

When the value of the case cannot be estimated

10.

P32.00

200.00
4.00
400.00

When the case does not concern property

(naturalization, adoption, legal separation, etc.)

11.

48.00

64.00

In forcible entry and illegal detainer cases appealed

from inferior courts
40.00

If the case concerns real estate, the assessed value thereof shall be
considered in computing the fees.
cSIHCA

In case the value of the property or estate or the sum claim is less or more
in accordance with the appraisal of the court, the dierence of fees shall be
refunded or paid as the case may be.

When the complaint in this case was led in 1998, however, as correctly pointed
out by petitioners, Rule 141 had been amended by Administrative Circular No. 1194 29 which provides:
BY RESOLUTION OF THE COURT, DATED JUNE 28, 1994, PURSUANT TO
SECTION 5 (5) OF ARTICLE VIII OF THE CONSTITUTION, RULE 141, SECTION
7 (a) AND (d), and SECTION 8 (a) and (b) OF THE RULES OF COURT ARE
HEREBY AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
RULE 141
LEGAL FEES

xxx xxx xxx

Sec. 7.

Clerks of Regional Trial Courts

(a)
For ling an action or a permissive counterclaim or money claim
against an estate not based on judgment, or for ling with leave of court a
third-party, fourth-party, etc. complaint, or a complaint in intervention, and
for all clerical services in the same, if the total sum claimed, inclusive of
interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation
expenses, and costs, or the stated value of the property in
litigation, is:
1.

Not more than P100,000.00

P400.00

2.

P100,000.00, or more but not more than P150,000.00

3.

For each P1,000.00 in excess of P150,000.00

600.00

5.00

xxx xxx xxx

Sec. 8.

Clerks of Metropolitan and Municipal Trial Courts

(a)
For each civil action or proceeding, where the value of the subject
matter involved, or the amount of the demand, inclusive of
interest, damages or whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation
expenses, and costs, is:
1.

Not more than P20,000.00

P120.00

2.

More than P20,000.00 but not more than P100,000.00

3.

More than P100,000.00 but not more than P200,000.00

400.00
850.00

(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

The clerk of court should thus have assessed the ling fee by taking into
consideration "the total sum claimed, inclusive of interest, damages of whatever
kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs, or the stated value of the
property in litigation." Respondent's and the Court of Appeals' reliance then on
Tacay was not in order.
Neither was, for the same reason, the Court of Appeals' reliance on the 1989 case of
Ng Soon v. Alday, 30 where this Court held:
. . . The failure to state the rate of interest demanded was not
fatal not only because it is the Courts which ultimately x the same, but also
because Rule 141, Section 5(a) of the Rules of Court, itemizing the
ling fees, speaks of "the sum claimed, exclusive of interest." This
clearly implies that the specification of the interest rate is not that
indispensable.
Factually, therefore, not everything was left to "guesswork" as respondent

Judge has opined. The sums claimed were ascertainable, sucient enough
to allow a computation pursuant to Rule 141, section 5(a).
Furthermore, contrary to the position taken by respondent Judge, the
amounts claimed need not be initially stated with mathematical
precision. The same Rule 141, section 5(a) (3rd paragraph), allows
an appraisal "more or less." 31 Thus:

"In case the value of the property or estate or the sum claimed is less or
more in accordance with the appraisal of the court, the dierence of fee
shall be refunded or paid as the case may be."
In other words, a nal determination is still to be made by the Court, and the
fees ultimately found to be payable will either be additionally paid by the party
concerned or refunded to him, as the case may be. The above provision
clearly allows an initial payment of the ling fees corresponding to the
estimated amount of the claim subject to adjustment as to what later may be
proved.
". . . there is merit in petitioner's claim that the third paragraph of Rule 141,
Section 5(a) clearly contemplates a situation where an amount is alleged or
claimed in the complaint but is less or more than what is later proved. If
what is proved is less than what was claimed, then a refund will be made; if
more, additional fees will be exacted. Otherwise stated, what is subject to
adjustment is the dierence in the fee and not the whole amount" ( Pilipinas
Shell Petroleum Corp., et als., vs. Court of Appeals, et als ., G.R. No. 76119,
April 10, 1989). 32 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
IaEACT

Respecting the Court of Appeals' conclusion that the clerk of court did not err when
he applied the exchange rate of US$1 = P43.00 "[i]n the absence of any oce guide
of the rate of exchange which said court functionary was duty bound to follow,
[hence,] the rate he applied is presumptively correct," the same does not lie. The
presumption of regularity of the clerk of court's application of the exchange rate is
not conclusive. 33 It is disputable. 34 As such, the presumption may be overturned by
the requisite rebutting evidence. 35 In the case at bar, petitioners have adequately
proven with documentary evidence 36 that the exchange rate when the complaint
was filed on September 7, 1998 was US$1 = P43.21.
In fine, the docket fees paid by respondent were insufficient.
With respect to petitioner's argument that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction
over the case in light of the insufficient docket fees, the same does not lie.
True, in Manchester Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 37 this Court held
that the court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the
prescribed docket fees, 38 hence, it concluded that the trial court did not acquire
jurisdiction over the case.
It bears emphasis, however, that the ruling in Manchester was claried in Sun

Insurance Oce, Ltd. (SIOL) v. Asuncion 39 when this Court held that in the former
there was clearly an eort to defraud the government in avoiding to pay the correct
docket fees, whereas in the latter the plainti demonstrated his willingness to abide
by paying the additional fees as required.
The principle in Manchester could very well be applied in the present case.
The pattern and the intent to defraud the government of the docket fee due
it is obvious not only in the ling of the original complaint but also in the ling
of the second amended complaint.
However, in Manchester, petitioner did not pay any additional docket fee until
the case was decided by this Court on May 7, 1987. Thus, in Manchester,
due to the fraud committed on the government, this Court held
that the court a quo did not acquire jurisdiction over the case and
that the amended complaint could not have been admitted
inasmuch as the original complaint was null and void.
In the present case, a more liberal interpretation of the rules is
called for considering that, unlike Manchester, private respondent
demonstrated his willingness to abide by the rules by paying the
additional docket fees as required. The promulgation of the decision in
Manchester must have had that sobering inuence on private respondent
who thus paid the additional docket fee as ordered by the respondent court.
It triggered his change of stance by manifesting his willingness to pay such
additional docket fee as may be ordered.
Nevertheless, petitioners contend that the docket fee that was paid is still
insucient considering the total amount of the claim. This is a matter which
the clerk of court of the lower court and/or his duly authorized docket clerk
or clerk in charge should determine and, thereafter, if any amount is found
due, he must require the private respondent to pay the same.
Thus, the Court rules as follows:
1.
It is not simply the ling of the complaint or appropriate initiatory
pleading, but the payment of the prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial
court with jurisdiction over the subject-matter or nature of the action.
Where the ling of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by payment of
the docket fee, the court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable
time but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary
period.
2.
The same rule applies to permissive counterclaims, third-party claims
and similar pleadings, which shall not be considered led until and unless the
ling fee prescribed therefor is paid. The court may also allow payment of
said fee within a reasonable time but also in no case beyond its applicable
prescriptive or reglementary period.
ASHaTc

3.
Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over a claim by the ling of
the appropriate pleading and payment of the prescribed ling fee but,
subsequently, the judgment awards a claim not specied in the pleading, or

if specied the same has been left for determination by the court, the
additional ling fee therefor shall constitute a lien on the judgment. It shall be
the responsibility of the Clerk of Court or his duly authorized deputy to
enforce said lien and assess and collect the additional fee. 40 (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)

The ruling in Sun Insurance Oce was echoed in the 2005 case of Heirs of Bertuldo
Hinog v. Hon. Achilles Melicor: 41
Plainly, while the payment of the prescribed docket fee is a jurisdictional
requirement, even its non-payment at the time of ling does not
automatically cause the dismissal of the case, as long as the fee is paid
within the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period, more so when the
party involved demonstrates a willingness to abide by the rules prescribing
such payment. Thus, when insucient ling fees were initially paid
by the plaintis and there was no intention to defraud the
government, the Manchester rule does not apply. (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied; citations omitted)

In the case at bar, respondent merely relied on the assessment made by the clerk of
court which turned out to be incorrect. Under the circumstances, the clerk of court
has the responsibility of reassessing what respondent must pay within the
prescriptive period, failing which the complaint merits dismissal.
Parenthetically, in the complaint, respondent prayed for "accrued interest . . .
subsequent to August 15, 1998 until fully paid." The complaint having been led on
September 7, 1998, respondent's claim includes the interest from August 16, 1998
until such date of filing.
Respondent did not, however, pay the ling fee corresponding to its claim for
interest from August 16, 1998 until the ling of the complaint on September 7,
1998. As priorly discussed, this is required under Rule 141, as amended by
Administrative Circular No. 11-94, which was the rule applicable at the time. Thus,
as the complaint currently stands, respondent cannot claim the interest from August
16, 1998 until September 7, 1998, unless respondent is allowed by motion to
amend its complaint within a reasonable time and specify the precise amount of
interest petitioners owe from August 16, 1998 to September 7, 1998 42 and pay the
corresponding docket fee therefor.
With respect to the interest accruing after the ling of the complaint, the same can
only be determined after a nal judgment has been handed down. Respondent
cannot thus be made to pay the corresponding docket fee therefor. Pursuant,
however, to Section 2, Rule 141, as amended by Administrative Circular No. 11-94,
respondent should be made to pay additional fees which shall constitute a lien in
the event the trial court adjudges that it is entitled to interest accruing after the
filing of the complaint.
Sec. 2.
Fees as lien . Where the court in its nal judgment awards a
claim not alleged, or a relief dierent or more than that claimed in the
pleading, the party concerned shall pay the additional fees which shall

constitute a lien on the judgment in satisfaction of said lien. The clerk of

court shall assess and collect the corresponding fees.

I n Ayala Corporation v. Madayag , 43 in interpreting the third rule laid down in Sun
Insurance regarding awards of claims not specied in the pleading, this Court held
that the same refers only to damages arising after the ling of the
complaint or similar pleading as to which the additional ling fee therefor
shall constitute a lien on the judgment.
. . . The amount of any claim for damages, therefore, arising on or before
the ling of the complaint or any pleading should be specied. While it is true
that the determination of certain damages as exemplary or corrective
damages is left to the sound discretion of the court, it is the duty of the
parties claiming such damages to specify the amount sought on the basis of
which the court may make a proper determination, and for the proper
assessment
of
the
appropriate
docket
fees. The
exception
contemplated as to claims not specied or to claims although
specied are left for determination of the court is limited only to
any damages that may arise after the ling of the complaint or
similar pleading for then it will not be possible for the claimant to
specify nor speculate as to the amount thereof. 44 (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied; citation omitted)
DaIACS

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED in part. The July 25, 2001 Decision and the
December 18, 2001 Resolution of the Court Appeals are hereby MODIFIED. The
Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City is ordered to reassess and
determine the docket fees that should be paid by respondent, BNP, in accordance
with the Decision of this Court, and direct respondent to pay the same within fifteen
(15) days, provided the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period has not yet
expired. Thereafter, the trial court is ordered to proceed with the case with utmost
dispatch.

SO ORDERED.

Panganiban, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona and Garcia, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1.

The petition names the Court of Appeals as a respondent. However, under Section
4, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the lower court need not be impleaded in petitions
for review. Hence, the Court deleted it from the title.

2.

Records at 18-22.

3.

Id. at 12-13.

4.

Id. at 14-15.

5.

Id. at 16-17.

6.

According to respondent BNP, Proton failed to remit (1) the amount of

US$844,674.07 under the trust receipt agreement dated June 4, 1996, (2) the
amount of US$171,120.53 under the trust receipt agreement dated January 14,
1997, and (3) the amount of US$529,189.80 under the trust agreement dated
April 24, 1997. These amounts are inclusive of interest and other related charges
accruing thereon as of August 15, 1998. However, the complaint does not provide
a breakdown as to which amounts comprise the respective principal and interest
of each of the three trust receipt agreements.

7.

Records at 24.

8.

Id. at 89.

9.

Id. at 124-126.

10.

Id. at 124-125.

11.

Id. at 125-126.

12.

Id. at 145-146.

13.

Ibid.

14.

Id. at 147-152.

15.

Id. at 170-174.

16.

Court of Appeals (CA) Rollo at 2-148.

17.

Id. at 186-189.

18.

Id. at 188-189.

19.

Id. at 196-201.

20.

Id. at 212.

21.

Rollo at 13-245.

22.

Id. at 27.

23.

Effective August 1, 1994.

24.

This figure was arrived at by multiplying 43.21 with 1,622,233.62.

25.

Dated March 24, 1988.

26.

Records at 9-10.

27.

180 SCRA 433 (1989).

28.

Id. at 443.

29.

It should be noted however that Rule 141 has been further amended by A.M. No.

00-2-01-SC which took effect on March 1, 2000. Thus, Sections 7 and 8 now read:
Sec. 7.

Clerks of Regional Trial Courts.

(a)
For ling an action or a permissive counter-claim or money claim against
an estate not based on judgment, or for ling with leave of court a third-party,
fourth-party, etc. complaint, or a complaint in intervention, and for all clerical
services in the same, if the total sum claimed, exclusive of interest, or the
stated value of the property in litigation, is:
1.

Less than P100,000.00

P500.00

2.

P100,000.00, or more but less than P150,000.00

800.00

3.

P150,000.00 or more but less than P200,000.00

1,000.00

4.

P200,000.00 or more but less than P250,000.00

1,500.00

5.

P250,000.00 or more but less than P300,000.00

1,750.00

6.

P300,000.00 or more but less than P350,000.00

2,000.00

7.

P350,000.00 or more but less than P400,000.00

2,250.00

8.

For each P1,000.00 in excess of P400,000.00

10.00

xxx xxx xxx

Sec. 8.

Clerks of Courts of the First Level.

(a)
For each civil action or proceeding, whether the value of the subject
matter involved, or the amount of the demand, inclusive of interest,
damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and
costs is:

30.
31.

1.

Not more than P20,000.00

P150.00

2.

More than P20,000.00 but not more than P100,000.00

3.

More than P100,000.00 but not more than P200,000.00

1,250.00

4.

More than P200,000.00 but not more than P300,000.00

1,750.00

5.

More than P300,000.00 but not more than P400,000.00

2,500.00

500.00

178 SCRA 221 (1989).

The third paragraph of Section 5(a), Rule 141 was not retained in the subsequent
amendment to Rule 141.

32.

Id. at 226-227.

33.

Rules of Court, Rule 131, sec. 2.

34.

Rules of Court, Rule 131, sec. 3, par. (m).

35.

Rules of Court, Rule 131, sec. 3.

36.

Records at 87.

37.

149 SCRA 562 (1987).

38.

Id. at 569.

39.

170 SCRA 274 (1989).

40.

Id. at 284-285.

41.

G.R. No. 140954, April 12, 2005.

42.

The clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court will not be able to determine the
interest due for the period from August 16, 1998 to September 7, 1998 because
the complaint does not provide a breakdown of the principal and interest owed by
petitioners as it merely lumps them into the amount of US$1,544,984.40.

43.

181 SCRA 687 (1990).

44.

Id. at 690-691.