Scribd
Upload
132 views1 page

Sun Insurance V Asuncion Digest: G.R. Nos. 79937-38 February 13, 1989

The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court had acquired jurisdiction over the case even though the private respondent did not initially pay the correct docket fees. While there was an intent to defraud the government of the proper fees, the private respondent demonstrated a willingness to comply with the rules by paying additional docket fees as required. As long as the correct fees are paid, even if not at the initial filing, the court can acquire jurisdiction. The clerk of court has a responsibility to enforce any liens on judgments for additional required fees.

Uploaded by

Chard Faustino
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
132 views1 page

Sun Insurance V Asuncion Digest: G.R. Nos. 79937-38 February 13, 1989

The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court had acquired jurisdiction over the case even though the private respondent did not initially pay the correct docket fees. While there was an intent to defraud the government of the proper fees, the private respondent demonstrated a willingness to comply with the rules by paying additional docket fees as required. As long as the correct fees are paid, even if not at the initial filing, the court can acquire jurisdiction. The clerk of court has a responsibility to enforce any liens on judgments for additional required fees.

Uploaded by

Chard Faustino
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Sun Insurance v Asuncion Digest

G.R. Nos. 79937-38 February 13, 1989


Facts:
Petitioner Sun Insurance (or SIOL) files a complaint for the annulment of a decision on the consignation of fire
insurance policy. Subsequently, the Private Respondent (PR) files a complaint for the refund of premiums and
the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment in a civil case against SIOL. In addition, PR also claims for
damages, attorneys fees, litigation costs, etc., however, the prayer did not state the amount of damages sought
although from the body of the complaint it can be inferred to be in amount of P 50 million. Hence, PR
originally paid only PhP 210.00 in docket fees.The complaint underwent a number of amendments to make
way for subsequent re-assessments of the amount of damages sought as well as the corresponding docket fees.
The respondent demonstrated his willingness to abide by the rules by paying the additional docket fees as
required.
Issue: Did the Court acquire jurisdiction over the case even if private respondent did not pay
the correct or sufficient docket fees?
YES.
It was held that it is not simply the filing 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 filing 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
reglamentary period. Same rule goes for permissive counterclaims, third party claims and similar pleadings.
In herein case, obviously, there was the intent on the part of PR to defraud the government of the docket fee
due not only in the filing of the original complaint but also in the filing of the second amended complaint.
However, a more liberal interpretation of the rules is called for considering that, unlike in Manchester, the
private respondent demonstrated his willingness to abide by the rules by paying the additional docket fees as
required.
Where a trial court acquires jurisdiction in like manner, but subsequently, the judgment awards a claim not
specified in the pleading, or if specified the same has been left for determination by the court, the additional
filing fee 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

You might also like