METROBANK AND SOLIDBANK CORPORATION, V. PEREZ [2010]

Solidbank Corporation (Solidbank) forged a 15 yrlease contract(1998 – 2013) with Bernardita H. Perez represented by her attorney-in-fact Patria H. Perezover two parcels of land in Sta. Maria, Bulacan. Solidbank was to, as it did, construct a one-storey building specifically suited for bank premises.

Solidbank was later acquired by Metrobank. Metrobank sent a notice of termination of the lease contract effective September 30, 2002.Respondent, objecting to the termination, filed a complaint for breach of contract and damages against herein petitioners Solidbank and Metrobank before the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan praying thatpetitioners be ordered to pay her “the would be unrealized income for the ensuing idle months of the said building.”

Metrobank: lease contract did not prohibit pre-termination by the parties.

Metrobank was declared to have waived its right to present evidence after its counsel incurred several unexcused absences.

rtc ruling

1. amount of P212,322.60 as unrealized income before the filing of the case (Sept. 2002 to Feb. 2003);

2. amount of P2,013,753.03 as unrealized (income) after the filing of the case up to present (March 2003 to March 2006);

3. unrealized income for the ensuing idle months of said building amounting to P7,126,494.30 (covering April 2006 until expiration of the contract of lease);

4. P200,000.00 as moral damages;

5. P100,000.00 as exemplary damages;

6. P100,000.00 as attorney’s fees and

7. To pay plaintiff as litigation expenses.

ca ruling

Metrobank challengedthe trial court’s award of “unrealized income for the ensuing idle months” despite respondent’s failure to pay docket fees thereon to thus render the complaint dismissible for lack of jurisdiction.

CA affirmed the trial court.Respondent admitted that the filing fees she paid did not cover her prayer for unrealized income for the ensuing idle months, for “at the time of filing and payment[,] the period that the building would be idle could not yet be determined.”

Perez could not have been certain at the time she filed theComplaint that Metrobank would no longer return to the Leased Property. It would have been speculative to allege in herComplaint any unrealized income for the remaining period of the Lease Contract considering that the possibility of Metrobank reconsidering its decision to terminate the said Lease Contract and returning to the Leased Property at some future time was not definitively foreclosed when the Complaint was filed.

Perez was thus justified in just making a general prayer for the court a quo to award unrealized income for the “ensuing idle months” of the Leased Property. #peaches

issue

WON the RTC has jurisdiction for failure to pay docket fees for the “unrealized income for the ensuing idle months”

ruling

Manchester Development Corporation v. CAthe Court held that a pleading which does not specify in the prayer the amount sought shall not be admitted or shall be expunged, and that a court acquires jurisdiction only upon payment of the prescribed docket fee. This rule was relaxed in Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. v. Asuncion:

Plainly, while the payment of prescribed docket fee is a jurisdictional requirement, even its non-payment at the time of filing does not automatically cause the dismissal of the case, as long as the fee is paid within the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period, more so when the party involved demonstrates a willingness to abide by the rules prescribing such payment. Thus, when insufficient filing fees were initially paid by the plaintiffs and there was no intention to defraud the government, the Manchester rule does not apply.

Metrobank takes exception to the application of Sun Insurance Office to the present case because, by its claim, respondent deliberately concealed the insufficient payment of docket fees.

The ensuing months in which the leased premises would be rendered vacant could not be determined at the time of the filing of the complaint.

National Steel Corporation v. CA:

Although the payment of the proper docket fees is a jurisdictional requirement, the trial courtmay allow the plaintiff in an action to pay the same within a reasonable time before the expiration of the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. If the plaintiff fails to comply with this requirement, the defendant should timely raise the issue of jurisdiction or else he would be considered in estoppel. In the latter case, the balance between the appropriate docket fees and the amount actually paid by the plaintiff will be considered a lien on any award he may obtain in his favor.

Metrobank raised the issue of jurisdiction only before the appellate court after it and its co-petitioner participated in the proceedings before the trial court. While lack of jurisdiction may be raised at any time, a party may be held in estoppel if, as in the present case, it has actively taken part in the proceedings being questioned.

balance between the actual fees and the correct filing fees

Respondent is still liable for the balance between the actual fees paid and the correct payable filing fees to include an assessment on the award of unrealized income, following Section 2 of Rule 141 which provides:

SEC. 2. Fees in lien. – Where the court in its final judgment awards a claim not alleged, or a relief different from, or more than that claimed in the pleading, the party concerned shall pay the additional fees which shall constitute a lien on the judgment in satisfaction of said lien. The clerk of court shall assess and collect the corresponding fee

and jurisprudence, viz:

The exception contemplated as to claims not specified or to claims although specified are left for determination of the court is limited only to any damages that may arise after the filing of the complaint or similar pleading for then it will not be possible for the claimant to specify nor speculate as to the amount thereof.

moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.

Respondent’s witness-attorney-in-fact testified only on the existence of the lease agreement and unrealized income due to pre-termination.

MD deleted: no record that the the claimant that emotional and mental sufferings were actually experienced.

AF deleted: not mentioned in the TC decision except for the the dispositive portion.

Petition partly GRANTED. The Clerk of Court of the RTC is ordered to reassess, determine and collect additional fees that should be paid by respondent within 15provided the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period has not yet expired, which additional fees shall constitute a lien on the judgment in satisfaction of said lien. The award of moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees is DELETED.