HEIRS OF DRAGON VS.

MANILA BANKING (Interest, penalties and attorney’s fees are

part of the docket fees)

FACTS: Dragon obtained several loans from Manila Banking. Manila Banking is a receivership
(receive, collect, sell company’s asset) of the BSP. BSP sent several demand letters to Dragon
requiring him to pay his outstanding loans. The final amount that Dragon owed is P44 M.
(consisting of principal amount of 6.9 M, accrued interest, penalties, and attorney’s fees).

Dragon failed to pay his obligation. Thus, Manila Banking filed a complaint for collection of
sum of money. RTC issued a decision in favor of Manila Banking. CA affirms. Dragon died, the
Heirs filed a Notice of Death with Motion for Substitution of Petitioner and a MOTEX of time to
file petition for review. Heirs/ Petitioners: Manila Banking concealed the true amount it is
claiming in order to avoid paying the correct docket fees, thus the RTC has no jurisdiction
due to the failure to assert the correct amount thus, failing to pay the correct docket fee in full.

ISSUE: W/N the RTC has jurisdiction over Manila Banking’s claims despite their failure to pay
the correct docket fees.

RULING: Under Rule 141, filing fees must be paid in full at the same time the initiatory
pleading or application is filed. Payment is indispensable for jurisdiction to vest in Court.
The basis for the assessment of filing fees should not only pertain to the principal amount,
but also includes the accrued interests, penalties and attorney’s fees, and should have been
specified both in the body of the complaint and in the prayer. Manila Banking only paid 34K
when it should have paid 200k. The RTC DID NOT ACQUIRE JURISDICTION, due to
respondent’s insufficient payment filing fees.