G.R. No.
179878, December 24, 2008
NEGROS ORIENTAL PLANTERS ASSOCIATION (NOPA),
Petitioner,
vs
HON. PRESIDING JUDGE OF RTC and CAMPOS,
Respondents.
Facts: Campos filed a Complaint for Breach of Contract with Damages
against NOPA before the RTC.
NOPA filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of an alleged failure
of Campos to file the correct filing fee. According to NOPA, Campos deliberately
concealed in his Complaint the exact amount of actual damages by opting to
estimate the value of the unwithdrawn molasses in order to escape the payment of
the proper docket fees.
RTC denied the Motion to Dismiss. NOPA filed a Motion for
Reconsideration but again was denied by the RTC.
NOPA filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA assailing the Orders of
the RTC. CA dismissed the Petition for Certiorari for failure to comply with the
Verification requirement as petitioner only stated on its verification the statement
“I hereby affirm and confirm that all the allegations contained herein are true and
correct to my own knowledge and belief.”
NOPA filed a Motion for Reconsideration attaching thereto an Amended
Petition for Certiorari in compliance with the requirements but still the CA denied
the said Motion.
ISSUE:
1) Whether or not CA committed reversible error when it ruled that there
was no substantial compliance with the procedural requirements when
petitioner failed to allege in its verification that the allegations therein are
true and correct of his personal knowledge or based on authentic records;
2) May an appellate court reverse the exercise of discretion by a lower court?
3) Whether or not the Manchester Ruling be applied in the case at bar.
SC Ruling:
1) No. CA is correct in its ruling. A pleading, therefore, wherein the
verification is merely based on the party’s knowledge and belief produces no
legal effect, subject to the discretion of the court to allow the deficiency to
be remedied.
In the case at bar, the Court of Appeals, in the exercise of discretion,
refused to allow the deficiency in the Verification to be remedied, by
denying NOPA’s Motion for Reconsideration with attached Amended
Petition for Certiorari.
2) No, unless there is grave abuse of discretion or adverse effect on the
substantial rights of a litigant.
The right of an appellate court to review judicial acts which lie in the
discretion of inferior courts may properly be invoked upon a showing of a
strong and clear case of abuse of power to the prejudice of the appellant, or
that the ruling objected to have rested on an erroneous principle of law not
vested in discretion.
The case at bar demonstrates a situation in which there is no effect on the
substantial rights of a litigant. NOPAs Petition for Certiorari is seeking the
reversal of the Orders of the RTC denying NOPA’s Motion to Dismiss on the
ground of failure to pay the proper docket fees. The alleged deficiency in the
payment of docket fees by Campos, if there is any, would not inure to the benefit
of NOPA.
There is therefore no substantive right that will be prejudiced by the Court
of Appeals exercise of discretion in the case at bar. While the payment of docket
fees is jurisdictional, it is nevertheless unmistakably also a technicality. Ironically,
in seeking the leniency of this Court on the basis of substantial justice, NOPA is
ultimately praying for a Writ of Certiorari enjoining the action for breach of
contract from being decided on the merits. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for
the gander. A party cannot expect its opponent to comply with the technical rules
of procedure while, at the same time, hoping for the relaxation of the technicalities
in its favor.
There was therefore no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of
Appeals warranting this Courts reversal of the exercise of discretion by the former.
3) The rule is clear and simple. In case where the party does not deliberately
intend to defraud the court in payment of docket fees, and manifests its willingness
to abide by the rules by paying additional docket fees when required by the court,
the liberal doctrine enunciated in Sun Insurance and not the strict regulations set
in Manchester will apply.
In the case at bar, Campos filed an amount of P54,898.50 as docket fee,
based on the amounts of P10,000,000.00 representing the value of unwithdrawn
molasses, P100,00.00 as storage fee, P200,00.00 as moral damages, P100,000.00
as exemplary damages and P500,000.00 as attorneys fees. The total amount
considered in computing the docket fee was P10,900,000.00. NOPA alleges
that Campos deliberately omitted a claim for unrealized profit of P100,000.00 and
an excess amount of storage fee in the amount of P502,875.98 in its prayer and,
hence, the amount that should have been considered in the payment of docket fees
is P11,502,875.98. The amount allegedly deliberately omitted was therefore
only P602,875.98 out of P11,502,875.98, or merely 5.2% of said alleged
total. Camposs pleadings furthermore evince his willingness to abide by the rules
by paying the additional docket fees when required by the Court.
Since the circumstances of this case clearly show that there was no
deliberate intent to defraud the Court in the payment of docket fees, the case
of Sun should be applied, and the Motion to Dismiss by NOPA should be denied.
