G.R. No.

47685 September 20, 1940

JESUS TOMAS CABANGIS, recurrent,

vs.
JUDGE NATIVIDAD ALMEDA LOPEZ, appealed.

FACTS:

On August 20, 1940, the appellant, through his attorney, filed a motion in the Municipal
Court presided over by the respondent and requested that the claim he attached for the
sum of P17.50 against Narcisa Diaz be admitted, registered and processed freely. of
rights, in accordance with the provisions of Article 17, Rule 4, of the Rules of the Courts.
The respondent, in order of the 21st of the same month, denied the motion and refused
to process the claim or lawsuit free of charge for the reason that Article 17 of Rule 4
invoked by the appellant applies only to poor litigants who do not have the means to pay
the registration fees that article 6 (b), Rule 130, provides that is charged for the
registration of each civil lawsuit in the Municipal Court of the City of Manila. In view of
this result, the appellant filed this mandamus appeal.

As will be seen, Articles 1 and 6 (b) of Rule 130 provide that whoever brings a civil action in the
Municipal Court of the City of Manila must pay the sum of P3 as registration fees for the lawsuit;
This rule recognizes as an exception, in the first place, the one expressed in article 22 of Rule 3
when it comes to a poor litigant and he complies with the conditions imposed therein. Another
exception to the rule is the one provided in article 17 of Rule 4 when it comes to a claim whose
amount does not exceed P20. Whether this last exception is applicable to all claims that do not
exceed P20, regardless of the financial status of the claimant, is the controversial point that will
be resolved later.

The appellant maintains that the phraseology of Article 17, Rule 4, is clear and conclusive in the
sense that it includes all demands or claims whose amount does not exceed P20 without taking
into account the financial condition of the plaintiff or claimant. We do not believe that this is the
case because if article 17 were applied according to its letter, without it being necessary to
interpret its precept to know its intention, then it would be in conflict with article 22 of Rule 3
which, as has been That said, it provides that only the poor are exempt from paying registration
fees for the claim they file, regardless of the nature or amount of their claim.

Reading article 17, it will be observed that its main objective is to exempt the parties from the
presentation of briefs of formal allegations, waive the formal summons and allow the Justice of
the Peace or Municipal Judge to orally pronounce the sentence, when it is a claim that does not
exceed P20. Incidentally, and in its last part, the article provides that in such matters no fees or
costs shall be charged. There is no philosophical or moral reason to support the theory that
Article 17 is applicable to all claimants, whether they are rich, wealthy or poor. If the general
principle that informs the Regulations of the Courts is that the plaintiffs in civil matters in the
Justice of the Peace or Municipal Courts must pay fees for the registration of the lawsuit (Art. 6
[b], Rule 130), that the lawsuit filed summons must be issued (Art. 5, Rule 4), and that the
judgment must be in writing (Art. 15, Rule 4), there must be some reason not to apply said
principle in civil matters whose amount does not exceed P20 and that The reason cannot be
other than that the plaintiff or claimant is poor in the sense in which the word is used by article
22 of Rule 3.
ISSUE:
Whether Article 17 of Rule 4 apply to all kinds of litigants - rich and poor
RULING:
No. Article 17 of Rule 4 recognizes as a source of origin the precept of Article 1 (21), Title III, of
the Constitution, which provides that "No person shall be denied free access to the courts for
reasons of poverty."
The article has been adopted for those litigants who cannot pay the registration fees or the
costs, in case their action fails. Within this concept we can mention the small employees,
domestics and workers who, in order to collect their reduced salaries and wages, had to go to
court and did not have the resources to cover the costs of registration, the fees of the lawyer
who would have to prepare the lawsuit and the fees of the Sheriff serving the summons. It would
be ridiculous to think that within the concept of article 17 the rich, wealthy, corporations and
merchants who have money to meet the reasonable expenses prior to the exercise of the action
are also included. For these, the article would find no justification if it were interpreted that its
benefits reached them. We conclude, therefore, that the provision of article 17 of Rule 4 that
exempts the payment of fees and costs refers only to poor claimants who do not have the
resources to incur such expenses.