PROTON PILIPINAS v. BANQUE NACIONAL (Santos)
To the complaint, the petitioner-defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the
June 15, 2005 | Carpio Morales, J. | Filing fees
Flow of the case: (RTC - MR - CA - MR - SC)
PETITIONER: Proton Pilipinas Corporation, Automotive Philippines, ASEA One
Corporation and Autocorp.
RESPONDENTS: Banque Nationale de Paris.
SUMMARY: Proton and BNP entered into a trust receipts arrangement wherein
Proton shall take BNP’s motor vehicles and sell them in order to deliver the proceeds
of the sale to BNP. Proton failed to pay and BNP instituted a suit with the RTC to
collect payment. The docket fees were assessed to be around P350k which was
properly paid by the respondent. Proton then argues that the case should be
dismissed for BNP’s failure to pay the correct amount, saying that the interest sought
to be claimed should be included in the fee’s computation. RTC denied the motion
and the CA affirmed the denial.
SC modified the ruling, saying that the fees paid were indeed incorrect. Following
petitioner’s basis which was Admin Circular No. 11-94, this circular has already
amended the old rule of the fees being exclusive of the interest sought to be claimed.
The present rule is that the interest claimed is included in the computation of the
docket fees. The rule on docket fee being a requirement for the court to acquire
jurisdiction is also clarified. Absent any intent to defraud the government, the
plaintiff will be given a reasonable time to pay any deficiency, taking into account
the case’s prescriptive and reglamentary periods. SC remands the case back to the
RTC for proper computation of the fees.
DOCTRINE: In the computation of docket fees, Admin Circular No. 11-94 is the
rule. Interest sought to be claimed is included. Absent any intent to defraud the
government, the plaintiff will be given a reasonable time to pay the deficiency.
FACTS:
1. This case is about a trust receipt agreement entered into by Proton Pilipinas
Corporation and Banque Nationale de Paris. Proton in this case would be
the entrustee and would sell imported passenger vehicles in order to deliver
the proceeds of the sale to BNP. This agreement had guarantors in favor of
Proton who are co-petitioners in this case – Automotive Corporation
Philippines, Asea One Corporation and Autocorp Group.
2. Proton failed to deliver or even return the motor vehicles which led to BNP
suing the guarantors for payment of around P1.5M which represent Proton’s
outstanding obligations. The guarantors refused which led BNP to file a
case in the RTC of Makati.
3. The Clerk of Court assessed the docket fees at P352,116.30 which BNP
paid.
4.
ground that BNP failed to pay the correct docket fees and this, according to
them, prevented the RTC from acquiring jurisdiction over the case.
5. The RTC denied to motion to dismiss reasoning that the docket fees were
properly paid. And in the event that it was not, the RTC has not ordered
them to be paid yet which made the motion to dismiss premature. MR was
filed and was denied. BNP appealed to the CA, which affirmed the RTC
decision. MR was filed, also denied.
ISSUE/s:
1. W/N the Makati City RTC Clerk of Court assessed the correct amount of
docket fees?
RULING: SC reversed the lower courts’ decisions. Proton wins in the sense that
BNP paid incorrectly. Case is remanded back to the RTC for proper computation and
the case proceeds as normal.
RATIO:
1. Petitioner cites Admin Circular No. 11-94 saying that BNP had failed to
include the interest of the amount they are claiming due to the wrongful
assessment.
2. Respondent, on the other hand, cites Tacay which was decided in 1989
which provided that the sum claimed and therefore, docket fee, shall be
exclusive of the interest.
3. The court ruled that petitioner was correct in this case as the complaint
was filed in 1998, the prevailing rule as to docket fee is Admin Circular
No. 11-94. Respondent’s basis was already amended and there is a need
to include the interests in the fees to be paid.
4. “The clerk of court should thus have assessed the filing 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.
5. Basically, the docket fees paid by respondent were insufficient for failing to
include the interest and other costs.
6. HOWEVER, petitioner’s argument that the trial court did not acquire
jurisdiction is not valid either. There is not a more liberal
interpretation of such a rule as long as there was no intent to defraud
the government. Respondent in this case demonstrated his willingness
to abide by the rules by paying the docket fees as assessed.
7. Therefore, the present rule is that should the filing of the initiatory
pleading not be accompanied by payment of the docket fees, the court
may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in no case
beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglamentary period. This rule shall
apply if there was no intention on the plaintiffs to defraud the government.
8. In this case, the assessment of the clerk caused the insufficient payment of
docket fees. The case must not be dismissed for an error made by a member
of the courts and not the plaintiff. Respondent’s prayer of interest
accrued must therefore be included in the docket fees to be paid. The
interest accruing after the filing of the complaint shall be computed
after the judgement – the same shall also constitute a lien on the
judgement.