Fedman Development Corp. vs Federico Agcaoili

G.R. No. 165025

FEDMAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, 

  - versus -

FEDERICO AGCAOILI, Respondent.

FDC was the owner and developer of a condominium project known as Fedman Suites Building (FSB) located on Salcedo Street, Legazpi Village, Makati City. Interchem Laboratories Incorporated (Interchem) purchased FSBs Unit 411 under a contract to sell. On March 31, 1977, FDC executed a Master Deed with Declaration of Restrictions, and formed the Fedman Suite Condominium Corporation (FSCC) to manage FSB and hold title over its common areas.

On March 6, 1987, Agcaoili lodged a complaint for damages against FDC and FSCC in the RTC, which was raffled to Branch 150 in Makati City. He alleged that the disconnection of the electric supply of Unit 411 on April 22, 1986 had unjustly deprived him of the use and enjoyment of the unit; that the disconnection had seriously affected his law practice and had caused him sufferings, inconvenience and embarrassment; that FDC and FSCC violated the compromise agreement; that he was entitled to actual damages amounting to ₱21,626.60, as well as to moral and exemplary damages, and attorneys fees as might be proven during the trial; that the payment of interest sought by FDC and FSCC under the contract to sell was illegal; and that FDC and FSCC were one and the same corporation. He also prayed that FDC and FSCC be directed to return the excessive amounts collected for real estate taxes.

 FSCC filed an answer, admitting that the electric supply of Unit 411 was disconnected for the second time on April 22, 1986, but averring that the disconnection was justified because of Agcaoilis failure to pay the monthly amortizations and condominium dues despite repeated demands. It averred that it did not repair the air-conditioning unit because of dwindling collections caused by the failure of some unit holders to pay their obligations on time; that the unit holders were notified of the electricity disconnection; and that the electric supply of Unit 411 could not be restored until Agcaoili paid his condominium dues..

The RTC rendered judgment in favor of Agcaoili, holding that his complaint for damages was not barred by res judicata; that he was justified in suspending the payment of his monthly amortizations; that FDCs cancellation of the contract to sell was improper; that FDC and FSCC had no separate personalities; and that Agcaoili was entitled to damages.

Issue: FDC claims that there was a failure to pay the correct amount of docket fee herein because the complaint did not specify the amounts of moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorneys fees; that the payment of the prescribed docket fee by Agcaoili was necessary for the RTC to acquire jurisdiction over the case; and that, consequently, the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over this case.

Held:

The filing of the complaint or other initiatory pleading and the payment of the prescribed docket fee are the acts that vest a trial court with jurisdiction over the claim. In an action where the reliefs sought are purely for sums of money and damages, the docket fees are assessed on the basis of the aggregate amount being claimed. Ideally, therefore, the complaint or similar pleading must specify the sums of money to be recovered and the damages being sought in order that the clerk of court may be put in a position to compute the correct amount of docket fees.

If the amount of docket fees paid is insufficient in relation to the amounts being sought, the clerk of court or his duly authorized deputy has the responsibility of making a deficiency assessment, and the plaintiff will be required to pay the deficiency. The non-specification of the amounts of damages does not immediately divest the trial court of its jurisdiction over the case, provided there is no bad faith or intent to defraud the Government on the part of the plaintiff.

The prevailing rule is that if the correct amount of docket fees are not paid at the time of filing, the trial court still acquires jurisdiction upon full payment of the fees within a reasonable time as the court may grant, barring prescription. The prescriptive period that bars the payment of the docket fees refers to the period in which a specific action must be filed, so that in every case the docket fees must be paid before the lapse of the prescriptive period, as provided in the applicable laws, particularly Chapter 3, Title V, Book III, of the Civil Code, the principal law on prescription of actions.

In Rivera v. Del Rosario, the Court, resolving the issue of the failure to pay the correct amount of docket fees due to the inadequate assessment by the clerk of court, ruled that jurisdiction over the complaint was still validly acquired upon the full payment of the docket fees assessed by the Clerk of Court. Relying on Sun Insurance Office, Ltd., (SIOL) v. Asuncion, the Court opined that the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading and the payment of the prescribed docket fees vested a trial court with jurisdiction over the claim, and although the docket fees paid were insufficient in relation to the amount of the claim, the clerk of court or his duly authorized deputy retained the responsibility of making a deficiency assessment, and the party filing the action could be required to pay the deficiency, without jurisdiction being automatically lost.

Even where the clerk of court fails to make a deficiency assessment, and the deficiency is not paid as a result, the trial court nonetheless continues to have jurisdiction over the complaint, unless the party liable is guilty of a fraud in that regard, considering that the deficiency will be collected as a fee in lien within the contemplation of Section 2, Rule 141 (as revised by A.M. No. 00-2-01-SC). The reason is that to penalize the party for the omission of the clerk of court is not fair if the party has acted in good faith.

Herein, the docket fees paid by Agcaoili were insufficient considering that the complaint did not specify the amounts of moral damages, exemplary damages and attorneys fees. Nonetheless, it is not disputed that Agcaoili paid the assessed docket fees. Such payment negated bad faith or intent to defraud the Government. Nonetheless, Agcaoili must remit any docket fee deficiency to the RTCs clerk of court.