Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari by Home Guaranty.

Original Complaint was a real action however R-II Builders filed an Second
Amended and Supplemental Complaint which deleted its cause of actions for
conveyance. The RTC Br. 24 accepted the amended complaint for the reason that
R=II Builders has already paid the prescribed docket fees in its original complaint
but issued an order for payment of appropriate docket fees.
The Home Guaranty argued that RTC Br. 24/22 had no jurisdiction since the
plaintiff has not paid the prescribed docket fees on its amended complaint.
Supreme Court Ruling: The conveyance and/or transfer of possession of the same
properties sought in the original complaint and Amended and Supplemental
Complaint both presuppose a real action for which appropriate docket fees
computed on the basis of the assessed or estimated value of said properties should
have been assessed and paid.

For failure of R-II Builders to pay the correct docket fees for its original complaint or,
for that matter, its Amended and Supplemental Complaint as directed in respondent
RTC's 19 May 2008 order, it stands to reason that jurisdiction over the case had yet to
properly attach. Applying the rule that "a case is deemed filed only upon payment of
the docket fee regardless of the actual date of filing in court"

For failure of R-II Builders to pay the correct docket fees for its original complaint or,
for that matter, its Amended and Supplemental Complaint as directed in respondent
RTC's 19 May 2008 order, it stands to reason that jurisdiction over the case had yet to
properly attach. Applying the rule that "a case is deemed filed only upon payment of
the docket fee regardless of the actual date of filing in court" Having admitted that
its original complaint partook the nature of a real action and having been directed to
pay the correct docket fees for its Amended and Supplemental Complaint, R-II
Builders is, furthermore, clearly chargeable with knowledge of the insufficiency of
the docket fees it paid.

The importance of filing fees cannot be over-emphasized for they are intended to
take care of court expenses in the handling of cases in terms of costs of supplies, use
of equipment, salaries and fringe benefits of personnel, and others, computed as to
man-hours used in the handling of each case. The payment of said fees, therefore,
cannot be made dependent on the result of the action taken without entailing
tremendous losses to the government and to the judiciary in particular.80 For non-
payment of the correct docket fees which, for real actions, should be computed on
the basis of the assessed value of the property, or if there is none, the estimated value
thereof as alleged by the claimant,81 respondent RTC should have denied admission
of R-II Builders’ Second Amended Complaint and ordered the dismissal of the case.