05 Jurisdiction of the MTC
Content
JURISDICTION OF THE
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS
Actually, when you know the jurisdiction of the RTC, automatically you know the
jurisdiction of the MTC. In criminal cases for example, sa RTC, imprisonment of more than
6 years until death penalty. So, necessarily 6 years or below, sa MTC. Same with civil
cases.
Summary of jurisdiction of MTC:
A.) As to original jurisdiction – Section 33
B.) As to delegated jurisdiction – Section 34
C.) As to special jurisdiction – Section 35
A.) EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE MTC
Sec. 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts
and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in civil cases. - Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
1) Exclusive
original
jurisdiction
over
civil
actions
and
probate
proceedings, testate and intestate, including the grant of provisional remedies
in proper cases, where the value of the personal property, estate, or amount of
the demand does not exceed Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) or, in Metro
Manila where such personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does not
exceed four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), exclusive of interest, damages
of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs, the amount of
which must be specifically alleged:
Provided, That interest, damages of
whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs shall be included
in the determination of the filing fees: Provided further, That where there are
several claims or causes of actions between the same or different parties,
embodied in the same complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the totality
of the claims in all the causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of
action arose out of the same or different transactions.
Well if you know the jurisdiction of the RTC on money claims and probate cases,
automatically you will also know that of the MTC. Under the law, it is only the principal
claim or the main claim which is computed. Interest, damages of whatever kind, attorneys
fees, litigation expenses and cost are not included in determining the jurisdiction.
Even if the amount of damages and attorney’s fees do not determine jurisdiction, they
must still be specifically alleged in the complaint for the purpose of payment of docket
fees. Thus, the higher the amount one is claiming the higher the filing fee.
So with that , we will now go to decided cases involving docket fees.
JURISPRUDENCE ON THE FILING FEE IN CIVIL CASES:
Rule 111, the filing of criminal action, the civil aspect is deemed instituted. If it claims
for moral and exemplary damages, the filing fees should be paid immediately. If not
stated, then it will be a lien in the judgment. Compensatory damages are exempt from the
filing of the fee.
Technically, a complaint in a civil case is not considered as filed unless you pay the
complete amount of the docket fee. Even if a complaint is filed, say, on December 1 and
the payment is made only on the December 4, the complaint is deemed officially filed on
the December 4 when the payment of the whole amount is effected.
This is so material for the purpose of prescription. Suppose today December 1 is the
last day for the filing of the complaint and the whole amount is not fully paid. ON
December 2, the action is prescribed already. Thus, the court acquires no jurisdiction over
the case until the filing of the fee for the whole amount is made.
In the case of
41
MANCHESTER DEVELOPMENT CORP. vs. CA
149 SCRA 562
FACTS: The plaintiff files a complaint and paid the docket fee but he did not
specify the amount of the damages he was claiming. He contended that he is
claiming for moral damages in such amount as the court will grant. Respondent
contended, on the other hand, that it cannot be done, there is a necessity to
state the exact amount of the damages in order to determine the correct amount
of the docket fee. So the plaintiff amended the complaint and paid the balance
of the docket fees.
ISSUE: Whether or not the subsequent amendment cures the defect?
HELD: No, the defect is incurable. Thus, the action has to be dismissed. The
court acquires no jurisdiction over the case. The remedy is to re-file the
complaint and pay again the complete amount of the docket fee. The prior
payment made is forfeited in as much as the defect in the first complaint is
incurable.
So based on the MANCHESTER ruling, you cannot cure the defect by merely amending
the complaints. The moment the case is filed, the court acquires jurisdiction. You cannot
by yourself confer jurisdiction. Very harsh noh? However, the SC, after reflecting on what it
said in the case of MANCHESTER, realized the harshness of their decision. This Manchester
ruling was relaxed in the subsequent case of SUN INSURANCE OFFICE which now the
governing law:
SUN INSURANCE OFFICE LTD. vs. COURT OF APPEALS
170 SCRA 274 [1989]
HELD: Thus, the Court rules as follows:
1. It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory
pleading, but the payment of the prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court
with jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action. Where the filing
of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by payment of the docket fee, the
court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in no case
beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.
2. The same rule applies to permissive counterclaims, third party claims and
similar pleadings, which shall not be considered filed until and unless the filing
fee prescribed therefore is paid. The court may also allow payment of said fee
within a reasonable time but also in no case beyond its applicable prescriptive or
reglementary period.
3. Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over a claim by the filing of the
appropriate pleading and payment of the prescribed filing fee but, subsequently,
the judgment awards a claim not specified in the pleading, or if specified the
same has been left for determination by the court, the additional filing fee
therefor shall constitute a lien on the judgment. It shall be the responsibility of
the Clerk of Court or his duly authorized deputy to enforce said lien and assess
and collect the additional fee.
For example, I make a partial payment of the docket fee because of inadequacy of
money. Under the SUN INSURANCE ruling, kung kulang ang bayad, huwag namang
i-dismiss ang kaso! Give the party a reasonable time to pay the balance. “When the filing
of the initiatory (complaint) pleading is not accompanied by the payment of the docket
fees, the court may allow the payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in no case
beyond the prescriptive period.” Meaning, if by the time you paid the balance, nag
prescribe na ang cause of action, ah wala na! So, provided that the action has not
prescribed.
The same rule applies to permissive counterclaims. So this answers the question:
42
Q: Is the defendant obliged to pay the docket fee?
A: It DEPENDS: if the counterclaim is permissive, dapat magbayad ka. If the
counterclaim is compulsory, libre yan!
And the third rule laid down in Sun Insurance: if the judgment awards a claim not
specified in the pleadings, the filing fee therefor shall be a lien in the judgment. It shall be
the responsibility of the clerk of Court or his duly-authorized deputy to enforce the lien,
assess and collect the additional fee.
Q: When can this possibly happen?
A: That can happen for example if I ask for damages. A man was hospitalized because
of physical injuries. Nag file siya ng kaso. Sabi ng court, may damages ito. So the court
acknowledged the claim of P300,000. But after the case is filed, di pa rin siya nakabayad
sa hospital. After filing, marami pang gastos! So in other words he might ask from the
court another P 50,000.
Q: Can the court award the P 50,000?
A: Yes, because the additional expenses came only after the filing of the case. The
additional expenses occurred only after filing the case. So nagkulang ngayon ang docket
fee. Bayaran mo, don’t dismiss the case!
The Sun Insurance is a leading case on docket fee. It was followed with a third case in
December 1989 which further clarified the SUN INSURANCE ruling. This is the case of
TACAY vs. RTC OF TAGUM, DAVAO DEL NORTE
180 SCRA 433 [1989]
NOTE: When this case was filed, wala pa yong INSURANCE. The guiding rule
was still MANCHESTER. But while this was pending lumabas na yong SUN
INSURANCE.
FACTS: The case was for recovery of land with damages (accion publiciana).
So it is not purely for damages. So how will you assess the filling fees? Based on
the value of the land, binayaran ng plaintiff ang docket fee. Defendant moved to
dismiss based on MANCHESTER because the plaintiff did not specify in the
complaint how much damages he was claiming. Now the RTC of Tagum denies
the motion to dismiss. The defendant goes to the SC citing MANCHESTER.
Of course sabi ng SC wala na ang Manchester because of Sun Insurance. But
here is another rule:
HELD: Dalawa ang filing fee: the assessed value of the land and for the
damages. There are two (2) options here: (1.) Kung nabayaran ang docket fee for
the recovery of land pero wala ang para sa damages, do not dismiss the entire
case! That is crazy if you will dismiss the entire case kasi nagbayad man siya ng
docket fee for the recovery of the land. Just do not consider the claim for the
damages. Or, (2.) second option, citing SUN INSURANCE, give him reasonable
time to pay the balance. So that's the case of TACAY.
“Where the action involves real property and a related claim for damages as
well, the legal fees shall be assessed on the basis of both (a) the value of the
property and (b) the total amount of related damages sought. The court acquires
jurisdiction over the action if the filing of the initiatory pleading is accompanied
by the payment of the requisite fees, or, if the fees are not paid at the time of
the filing of the pleading, as of the time of full payment of the fees within such
reasonable time as the court may grant, unless, of course, prescription has set in
the meantime.”
Now, there are other interesting cases on the issue on docket fees.
43
FILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORP. vs. COURT OF APPEALS
171 SCRA 674 [1989]
FACTS: Adrian dela Paz sued all oil companies (Shell, Caltex, Mobil, etc.) of
the Philippines for infringement of patent with prayer for the payment of
reasonable compensation for damages. According to him, these companies used
in their operation a certain type of machine which he claimed he invented. His
patent was infringed. Thus, all these companies are all liable to him for royalties.
The estimated yearly royalty due him is P236,572. Since the violation has been
for many years already, his claims reached millions. The trial court ordered him
to pay P945,636.90 as docket fee. He had no money so he questioned it. So sabi
rig court: “We will allow you to file the case and the docket fee is deductible from
whatever judgment of damages shall be awarded by the court.” So, parang file
now pay later.
HELD: There is no such thing as file now pay later. No justification can be
found to convert such payment to something akin to a contingent fee which
would depend on the result of the case. Hindi pwede sa gobyerno yan! Example
is kung matalo ka sa kaso – the case is dismissed. Tabla ang gobyerno? So, di
pwede yan!
“Filing fees are intended to take care of court expenses in the handling of
cases in terms of cost of supplies, use of equipments, salaries and fringe benefits
of personnel, etc., computed as to man hours used in 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.”
Alam ninyo, ang dapat sana n'yang ginawa, nag file sya ng motion to allow him to
litigate as a pauper. In legal ethics, pwede yan sa abogado – yung contingent fee:
“Attorney, will you handle my case? Wala akong pera. I will offer a contingent fee.” “Okay,
I’ll handle your case. Pag-talo, wala kang utang. Pag panalo, kalahati sa akin.” Yan!
Pwede yan. Pero sa gobyerno, wala yan because usually the judiciary gets its budget from
the filing fees.
LACSON vs. REYES
182 SCRA 729
FACTS: There was a case filed and then the lawyer filed a motion to direct the
plaintiff to pay him his attorney’s fees – a motion for payment of attorney’s fees.
So sabi ng court: “Attorney, magbayad ka ng docket fee.” “Bakit? Motion nga
lang yan, may docket fee pa? Grabeeh!”
HELD: No, bayad ka uli. “It may be true that the claim for attorney's fees was
but an incident in the main case, still, it is not an escape valve from the payment
of docket fees because as in all actions, whether separate or as an offshoot of a
pending proceeding, the payment of docket fees is mandatory. The docket fee
should be paid before the court would validly act on the motion.”
SUSON vs. COURT OF APPEALS
278 SCRA 284 [August 21, 1997)
FACTS: Mortz filed a case against Charles in Leyte. After filing, the court
dismissed the case because it should be filed in Cebu. Mortz wrote a letter to the
Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) asking that the docket fee paid in Leyte
be considered applicable to Cebu. OCA granted his request.
Charles questioned it because of the rule that the payment of docket fee is
jurisdictional.
44
HELD: “The OCA has neither the power nor the authority to exempt any party
not otherwise exempt under the law or under the Rules of Court in the payment
of the prescribed docket fees. It may be noteworthy to mention here that even in
the Supreme Court, there are numerous instances when a litigant has had to refile a petition previously dismissed by the Court due to a technicality (violation of
a pertinent Circular), and in these instances, the litigant is required to pay the
prescribed docket fee and not apply to the re-filed case the docket fees paid in
the earlier dismissed case.”
“In the case at bar, in the strict sense, Mortz’s complaint cannot be deemed
to have been ‘re-filed’ in Cebu City because it was not originally filed in the same
court but in the RTC Leyte. Thus, when Mortz’s complaint was docketed by the
clerk of court of the RTC Cebu City, it became an entirely separate case from that
was dismissed by the RTC of Leyte due to improper venue. As far as the case in
Cebu is concerned, while undoubtedly the order of dismissal is not an
adjudication on the merits of the case, the order, nevertheless, is a final order.
This means that when private respondent did not appeal therefrom, the order
became final and executory for all legal intents and purposes.”
DE LEON vs. COURT OF APPEALS
287 SCRA 94 [March 6, 1998]
FACTS: The question for decision is whether in assessing the docket fees to
be paid for the filing of an action for annulment or rescission of a contract of
sale, the value of the real property, subject matter of the contract, should be
used as basis, or whether the action should be considered as one which is not
capable of pecuniary estimation and therefore the fee charged should be a flat
rate of P400.00 as provided in Rule 141, Section 7(b)(1) of the Rules of Court.
Polgas argued that an action for annulment or rescission of a contract of sale
of real property is a real action and, therefore, the amount of the docket fees to
be paid by Dagul should be based either on the assessed value of the property,
subject matter of the action, or its estimated value as alleged in the complaint.
Since Dagul alleged that the land, in which they claimed an interest as heirs,
had been sold for P4,378,000.00 to Polgas, this amount should be considered the
estimated value of the land for the purpose of determining the docket fees.
Dagul countered that an action for annulment or rescission of a contract of
sale of real property is incapable of pecuniary estimation and, so, the docket
fees should be the fixed amount of P400.00 in Rule 141, Section 7(b).
HELD: Dagul is correct. “In determining whether an action is one the subject
matter of which is not capable of pecuniary estimation, this Court has adopted
the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the principal action or remedy
sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is
considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the
municipal courts or in the courts of first instance would depend on the amount of
the claim. “
However, where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a
sum of money, or where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a
consequence of, the principal relief sought, like in suits to have the defendant
perform his part of the contract (specific performance) and in actions for
support, or for annulment of a judgment or to foreclose a mortgage, this Court
has considered such actions as cases where the subject of the litigation may not
be estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable exclusively by courts of first
instance.”
“The rationale of the rule is plainly that the second class cases, besides the
determination of damages, demand an inquiry into other factors which the law
has deemed to be more within the competence of courts of first instance, which
45
were the lowest courts of record at the time that the first organic laws of the
Judiciary were enacted allocating jurisdiction.”
“Actions for specific performance of contracts have been expressly
pronounced to be exclusively cognizable by courts of first instance and no
cogent reason appears, and none is here advanced by the parties, why an action
for rescission (or resolution) should be differently treated, a "rescission" being a
counterpart, so to speak, of ‘specific performance’.”
“In both cases, the court would certainly have to undertake an investigation
into facts that would justify one act or the other. No award for damages may be
had in an action for rescission without first conducting an inquiry into matters
which would justify the setting aside of a contract. Issues of the same nature
may be raised by a party against whom an action for rescission has been
brought, or by the plaintiff himself.”
“It is, therefore, difficult to see why a prayer for damages in an action for
rescission should be taken as the basis for concluding such action as one
capable of pecuniary estimation — a prayer which must be included in the main
action if plaintiff is to be compensated for what he may have suffered as a result
of the breach committed by defendant, and not later on precluded from
recovering damages by the rule against splitting a cause of action and
discouraging multiplicity of suits.”
“Thus, although eventually the result may be the recovery of land, it is the
nature of the action as one for rescission of contract which is controlling.”
“Since the action of Polgas against Dagul is solely for annulment or rescission
which is not susceptible of pecuniary estimation, the action should not be
confused and equated with the ‘value of the property’ subject of the transaction;
that by the very nature of the case, the allegations, and specific prayer in the
complaint, sans any prayer for recovery of money and/or value of the
transaction, or for actual or compensatory damages, the assessment and
collection of the legal fees should not be intertwined with the merits of the case
and/or what may be its end result.”
TOTALITY RULE
Now, continuing with Section 33, it says there in paragraph [1]:
“Provided further, That where there are several claims or causes of actions
between the same or different parties, embodied in the same complaint, the
amount of the demand shall be the totality of the claims in all the causes of
action, irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the same or
different transactions.”
What do you call that rule? The TOTALITY RULE.
ILLUSTRATION: Joinder of causes of action. The defendant secured from me two or more
loans. Let’s say, apat na utang covered by four (4) promissory notes and all of them are
due and he has not paid me any. Let's say each note covers a principal amount of P75,000.
Now, I decided to file one complaint embodying my four causes of action against him
although I have the option also to file four separate complaints. If you will look at the value
of each claim which is P75,000 that is triable by the MTC. But if you will add the four
claims that will be P300,000.00.
Q: Which will prevail? The amount of each of the claim or the total?
A: The total amount will prevail. So it should be filed in the RTC. That is the totality rule.
Never mind that there are four (4) separate loans because the law says “irrespective of
whatever the cause of action arose out of the same or different transactions.” Now in that
example, there is only one plaintiff and one defendant. The plaintiff has four claims
46
against the same defendant. Now suppose there are 4 plaintiffs suing the same defendant
in what is called in procedure as joinder of causes of action and joinder of parties.
EXAMPLE: There are four (4) passengers riding on a public vehicle. They were all
injured when the bus met an accident and all of them were hospitalized. So after they
were discharged, the four of them wanted to sue the bus company for damages arising
from contract of carriage or culpa contractual. Since they hired the same lawyer, the
lawyer said, “Why will I file 4 complaints? Isahin na lang. I will join them.” In effect, he
joined 4 causes of action.
Q: The same question will arise. What will be now the basis of jurisdiction?
The claim of every plaintiff or the total claims of the 4 plaintiffs?
A: The total claims. You apply the totality rule because the law says “where there are
several claims or cause of action between the same or different parties.” So whether the
parties are the same or the parties are different embodied in the same complaint the
amount of the demand shall be the totality of the claims the totality rule applies in both
situations.
We will now go to paragraph [2] of Section 33.
[2] Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and
unlawful detainer: Provided, That when, in such cases, the defendant raises the
question of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be
resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall
be resolved only to determine the issue of possession. x x x x”
This is related to the Law on Property – FORCIBLE ENTRY (recovery of physical
possession, e.g. squatting) and UNLAWFUL DETAINER (e.g. you eject a lessee does not pay
his rent.) – MTC lahat iyan. The two cases should not be confused with accion publiciana
which is also the recovery of possession but that is a better right. Now, in unlawful
detainer, the plaintiff also prays not only to eject the defendant but also to claim for back
rentals or the reasonable amount of the use and occupation of the property in case of
forcible entry.
Q: Suppose the unpaid rentals already amount to almost half a million pesos
– so, unlawful detainer plus back rentals of half a million. Where should the case
be filed?
A: The case should still be filed with the MTC. What determines jurisdiction is the nature
of the action, and not the amount of recoverable rentals. Kahit na one (1) million pa yan,
MTC pa rin yan.
Q: In an action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer, can the party present
evidence of ownership?
A: The general rule is NO because the MTC cannot adjudicate ownership. That has to be
threshed out in the proper civil action in the RTC. But if evidence of ownership is presented
in the forcible entry or unlawful detainer case, it is only incidental and it is only resolved to
determine the issue of possession. But the declaration of ownership is not final – that is
only prima facie. The question of ownership must be litigated in a separate action in the
RTC.
Let us now proceed to the third paragraph of Section 33 as amended by R.A. 7691:
[3] Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title
to, or possession of, real property or any interest therein where the assessed
value of the property or interest therein does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos
(P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value
does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages
of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs:
Provided,
That in cases of land not declared for tax purposes, the value of such property
shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lots. (As amended by
RA 7691)
47
Aside from forcible entry and unlawful detainer, MTCs have now jurisdiction over other
real actions like accion publiciana and accion reinvidicatoria cases where the assessed
value of the land should be P20,000 or less. In Metro Manila, it is P50,000 or less. That is
the amendment brought about by RA 7691 which expanded the jurisdiction of the MTC.
B.) DELEGATED JURISDICTION OF THE MTC
Sec. 34. Delegated Jurisdiction in Cadastral and Land Registration Cases. MetTCs, MTCs and MCTCs may be assigned by the Supreme Court to hear and
determine cadastral or land registration cases covering lots where there is no
controversy or opposition, or contested lots where the value of which does not
exceed One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00), such value to be ascertained by
the affidavit of the claimant or by agreement of the respective claimants if
there are more than one, or from the corresponding tax declarations of the real
property. Their decisions in these cases shall be appealable in the same manner
as decisions of the RTCs. (As amended by RA 7691)
Review: These are related to your study of Land, Titles and Deeds (The Property
Registration Decree) When you file a petition for land registration, the object is to have
your property registered and fall under the Torrens System of the Land Registration.
Patituluhan ba! Now, what is the difference between a land registration proceeding and a
cadastral proceeding? Cadastral is compulsory registration.
Q: Now, what is this delegated jurisdiction all about?
A: It refers only to cadastral and land registration cases which involve the titling of
property under the Torrens system or cadastral land registration.
Under the Property Registration Decree, only the RTC has authority to entertain land
registration and cadastral cases. But now, Section 34 gives the Supreme Court the
authority to DELEGATE MTCs to hear and decide land registration and cadastral cases
under the following conditions:
1.) when there is no controversy or nobody is contesting your petition; or
2.) even if the petition is contested where the value of the land to be titled does not
exceed P100,000.
In which case, these MTCs can decide and their decisions are appealable directly to the
CA. Para bang acting RTC sila ba. That’s what it is called delegated jurisdiction. ‘Delegate’
means it really has to be assigned to you.
Now do not confuse this P100,000 (Section 34) with the P20,000 under Section 33.
Section 34 deals with cadastral and land registration cases. Section 33 involves civil cases
(accion publiciana, etc.)
C.) SPECIAL JURISDICTION OF MTC
Sec. 35. Special jurisdiction in certain cases.
- In the absence of all
the Regional Trial Judges in a province or city, any Metropolitan Trial Judge,
Municipal Trial Judge, Municipal Circuit Trial Judge may hear and decide
petitions for a writ of habeas corpus or applications for bail in criminal cases
in the province or city where the absent Regional Trial Judges sit.
This is what we call special jurisdiction. That only applies to two (2) types of cases: (1) Habeas
corpus and (2) hearing of petitions for bail.
Remember that habeas corpus is not within the jurisdiction of the MTC. It is with the RTC. Also,
the hearing on petition for bail, RTC yan because the offense may be a heinous one, but under the
law on criminal procedure you can file a petition for bail to have your temporary freedom while the
case is going on. That’s supposed to be in the RTC.
But suppose there is no available RTC judge, all of them are sick or all of them are attending a
convention (this actually happened in Davao in 1990) Section 35 provides that the MTC, in the
absence of RTC judges, can hear and decide on habeas corpus case petitions and applications or
48
petitions for bail in criminal cases. So acting pa rin yan because they are urgent and the liberty of a
person is at stake.
That is allowed because of the urgency of the situation. There is no need for a SC authorization.
However, this is only allowed in the absence of the RTC judges. But if the RTC judge comes back, he
has to take over the petition.
So with that we are through with the jurisdiction of our courts. So we will now proceed to
remedial law proper.
49
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS
Actually, when you know the jurisdiction of the RTC, automatically you know the
jurisdiction of the MTC. In criminal cases for example, sa RTC, imprisonment of more than
6 years until death penalty. So, necessarily 6 years or below, sa MTC. Same with civil
cases.
Summary of jurisdiction of MTC:
A.) As to original jurisdiction – Section 33
B.) As to delegated jurisdiction – Section 34
C.) As to special jurisdiction – Section 35
A.) EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE MTC
Sec. 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts
and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in civil cases. - Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
1) Exclusive
original
jurisdiction
over
civil
actions
and
probate
proceedings, testate and intestate, including the grant of provisional remedies
in proper cases, where the value of the personal property, estate, or amount of
the demand does not exceed Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) or, in Metro
Manila where such personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does not
exceed four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), exclusive of interest, damages
of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs, the amount of
which must be specifically alleged:
Provided, That interest, damages of
whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs shall be included
in the determination of the filing fees: Provided further, That where there are
several claims or causes of actions between the same or different parties,
embodied in the same complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the totality
of the claims in all the causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of
action arose out of the same or different transactions.
Well if you know the jurisdiction of the RTC on money claims and probate cases,
automatically you will also know that of the MTC. Under the law, it is only the principal
claim or the main claim which is computed. Interest, damages of whatever kind, attorneys
fees, litigation expenses and cost are not included in determining the jurisdiction.
Even if the amount of damages and attorney’s fees do not determine jurisdiction, they
must still be specifically alleged in the complaint for the purpose of payment of docket
fees. Thus, the higher the amount one is claiming the higher the filing fee.
So with that , we will now go to decided cases involving docket fees.
JURISPRUDENCE ON THE FILING FEE IN CIVIL CASES:
Rule 111, the filing of criminal action, the civil aspect is deemed instituted. If it claims
for moral and exemplary damages, the filing fees should be paid immediately. If not
stated, then it will be a lien in the judgment. Compensatory damages are exempt from the
filing of the fee.
Technically, a complaint in a civil case is not considered as filed unless you pay the
complete amount of the docket fee. Even if a complaint is filed, say, on December 1 and
the payment is made only on the December 4, the complaint is deemed officially filed on
the December 4 when the payment of the whole amount is effected.
This is so material for the purpose of prescription. Suppose today December 1 is the
last day for the filing of the complaint and the whole amount is not fully paid. ON
December 2, the action is prescribed already. Thus, the court acquires no jurisdiction over
the case until the filing of the fee for the whole amount is made.
In the case of
41
MANCHESTER DEVELOPMENT CORP. vs. CA
149 SCRA 562
FACTS: The plaintiff files a complaint and paid the docket fee but he did not
specify the amount of the damages he was claiming. He contended that he is
claiming for moral damages in such amount as the court will grant. Respondent
contended, on the other hand, that it cannot be done, there is a necessity to
state the exact amount of the damages in order to determine the correct amount
of the docket fee. So the plaintiff amended the complaint and paid the balance
of the docket fees.
ISSUE: Whether or not the subsequent amendment cures the defect?
HELD: No, the defect is incurable. Thus, the action has to be dismissed. The
court acquires no jurisdiction over the case. The remedy is to re-file the
complaint and pay again the complete amount of the docket fee. The prior
payment made is forfeited in as much as the defect in the first complaint is
incurable.
So based on the MANCHESTER ruling, you cannot cure the defect by merely amending
the complaints. The moment the case is filed, the court acquires jurisdiction. You cannot
by yourself confer jurisdiction. Very harsh noh? However, the SC, after reflecting on what it
said in the case of MANCHESTER, realized the harshness of their decision. This Manchester
ruling was relaxed in the subsequent case of SUN INSURANCE OFFICE which now the
governing law:
SUN INSURANCE OFFICE LTD. vs. COURT OF APPEALS
170 SCRA 274 [1989]
HELD: Thus, the Court rules as follows:
1. It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory
pleading, but the payment of the prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court
with jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action. Where the filing
of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by payment of the docket fee, the
court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in no case
beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.
2. The same rule applies to permissive counterclaims, third party claims and
similar pleadings, which shall not be considered filed until and unless the filing
fee prescribed therefore is paid. The court may also allow payment of said fee
within a reasonable time but also in no case beyond its applicable prescriptive or
reglementary period.
3. Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over a claim by the filing of the
appropriate pleading and payment of the prescribed filing fee but, subsequently,
the judgment awards a claim not specified in the pleading, or if specified the
same has been left for determination by the court, the additional filing fee
therefor shall constitute a lien on the judgment. It shall be the responsibility of
the Clerk of Court or his duly authorized deputy to enforce said lien and assess
and collect the additional fee.
For example, I make a partial payment of the docket fee because of inadequacy of
money. Under the SUN INSURANCE ruling, kung kulang ang bayad, huwag namang
i-dismiss ang kaso! Give the party a reasonable time to pay the balance. “When the filing
of the initiatory (complaint) pleading is not accompanied by the payment of the docket
fees, the court may allow the payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in no case
beyond the prescriptive period.” Meaning, if by the time you paid the balance, nag
prescribe na ang cause of action, ah wala na! So, provided that the action has not
prescribed.
The same rule applies to permissive counterclaims. So this answers the question:
42
Q: Is the defendant obliged to pay the docket fee?
A: It DEPENDS: if the counterclaim is permissive, dapat magbayad ka. If the
counterclaim is compulsory, libre yan!
And the third rule laid down in Sun Insurance: if the judgment awards a claim not
specified in the pleadings, the filing fee therefor shall be a lien in the judgment. It shall be
the responsibility of the clerk of Court or his duly-authorized deputy to enforce the lien,
assess and collect the additional fee.
Q: When can this possibly happen?
A: That can happen for example if I ask for damages. A man was hospitalized because
of physical injuries. Nag file siya ng kaso. Sabi ng court, may damages ito. So the court
acknowledged the claim of P300,000. But after the case is filed, di pa rin siya nakabayad
sa hospital. After filing, marami pang gastos! So in other words he might ask from the
court another P 50,000.
Q: Can the court award the P 50,000?
A: Yes, because the additional expenses came only after the filing of the case. The
additional expenses occurred only after filing the case. So nagkulang ngayon ang docket
fee. Bayaran mo, don’t dismiss the case!
The Sun Insurance is a leading case on docket fee. It was followed with a third case in
December 1989 which further clarified the SUN INSURANCE ruling. This is the case of
TACAY vs. RTC OF TAGUM, DAVAO DEL NORTE
180 SCRA 433 [1989]
NOTE: When this case was filed, wala pa yong INSURANCE. The guiding rule
was still MANCHESTER. But while this was pending lumabas na yong SUN
INSURANCE.
FACTS: The case was for recovery of land with damages (accion publiciana).
So it is not purely for damages. So how will you assess the filling fees? Based on
the value of the land, binayaran ng plaintiff ang docket fee. Defendant moved to
dismiss based on MANCHESTER because the plaintiff did not specify in the
complaint how much damages he was claiming. Now the RTC of Tagum denies
the motion to dismiss. The defendant goes to the SC citing MANCHESTER.
Of course sabi ng SC wala na ang Manchester because of Sun Insurance. But
here is another rule:
HELD: Dalawa ang filing fee: the assessed value of the land and for the
damages. There are two (2) options here: (1.) Kung nabayaran ang docket fee for
the recovery of land pero wala ang para sa damages, do not dismiss the entire
case! That is crazy if you will dismiss the entire case kasi nagbayad man siya ng
docket fee for the recovery of the land. Just do not consider the claim for the
damages. Or, (2.) second option, citing SUN INSURANCE, give him reasonable
time to pay the balance. So that's the case of TACAY.
“Where the action involves real property and a related claim for damages as
well, the legal fees shall be assessed on the basis of both (a) the value of the
property and (b) the total amount of related damages sought. The court acquires
jurisdiction over the action if the filing of the initiatory pleading is accompanied
by the payment of the requisite fees, or, if the fees are not paid at the time of
the filing of the pleading, as of the time of full payment of the fees within such
reasonable time as the court may grant, unless, of course, prescription has set in
the meantime.”
Now, there are other interesting cases on the issue on docket fees.
43
FILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORP. vs. COURT OF APPEALS
171 SCRA 674 [1989]
FACTS: Adrian dela Paz sued all oil companies (Shell, Caltex, Mobil, etc.) of
the Philippines for infringement of patent with prayer for the payment of
reasonable compensation for damages. According to him, these companies used
in their operation a certain type of machine which he claimed he invented. His
patent was infringed. Thus, all these companies are all liable to him for royalties.
The estimated yearly royalty due him is P236,572. Since the violation has been
for many years already, his claims reached millions. The trial court ordered him
to pay P945,636.90 as docket fee. He had no money so he questioned it. So sabi
rig court: “We will allow you to file the case and the docket fee is deductible from
whatever judgment of damages shall be awarded by the court.” So, parang file
now pay later.
HELD: There is no such thing as file now pay later. No justification can be
found to convert such payment to something akin to a contingent fee which
would depend on the result of the case. Hindi pwede sa gobyerno yan! Example
is kung matalo ka sa kaso – the case is dismissed. Tabla ang gobyerno? So, di
pwede yan!
“Filing fees are intended to take care of court expenses in the handling of
cases in terms of cost of supplies, use of equipments, salaries and fringe benefits
of personnel, etc., computed as to man hours used in 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.”
Alam ninyo, ang dapat sana n'yang ginawa, nag file sya ng motion to allow him to
litigate as a pauper. In legal ethics, pwede yan sa abogado – yung contingent fee:
“Attorney, will you handle my case? Wala akong pera. I will offer a contingent fee.” “Okay,
I’ll handle your case. Pag-talo, wala kang utang. Pag panalo, kalahati sa akin.” Yan!
Pwede yan. Pero sa gobyerno, wala yan because usually the judiciary gets its budget from
the filing fees.
LACSON vs. REYES
182 SCRA 729
FACTS: There was a case filed and then the lawyer filed a motion to direct the
plaintiff to pay him his attorney’s fees – a motion for payment of attorney’s fees.
So sabi ng court: “Attorney, magbayad ka ng docket fee.” “Bakit? Motion nga
lang yan, may docket fee pa? Grabeeh!”
HELD: No, bayad ka uli. “It may be true that the claim for attorney's fees was
but an incident in the main case, still, it is not an escape valve from the payment
of docket fees because as in all actions, whether separate or as an offshoot of a
pending proceeding, the payment of docket fees is mandatory. The docket fee
should be paid before the court would validly act on the motion.”
SUSON vs. COURT OF APPEALS
278 SCRA 284 [August 21, 1997)
FACTS: Mortz filed a case against Charles in Leyte. After filing, the court
dismissed the case because it should be filed in Cebu. Mortz wrote a letter to the
Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) asking that the docket fee paid in Leyte
be considered applicable to Cebu. OCA granted his request.
Charles questioned it because of the rule that the payment of docket fee is
jurisdictional.
44
HELD: “The OCA has neither the power nor the authority to exempt any party
not otherwise exempt under the law or under the Rules of Court in the payment
of the prescribed docket fees. It may be noteworthy to mention here that even in
the Supreme Court, there are numerous instances when a litigant has had to refile a petition previously dismissed by the Court due to a technicality (violation of
a pertinent Circular), and in these instances, the litigant is required to pay the
prescribed docket fee and not apply to the re-filed case the docket fees paid in
the earlier dismissed case.”
“In the case at bar, in the strict sense, Mortz’s complaint cannot be deemed
to have been ‘re-filed’ in Cebu City because it was not originally filed in the same
court but in the RTC Leyte. Thus, when Mortz’s complaint was docketed by the
clerk of court of the RTC Cebu City, it became an entirely separate case from that
was dismissed by the RTC of Leyte due to improper venue. As far as the case in
Cebu is concerned, while undoubtedly the order of dismissal is not an
adjudication on the merits of the case, the order, nevertheless, is a final order.
This means that when private respondent did not appeal therefrom, the order
became final and executory for all legal intents and purposes.”
DE LEON vs. COURT OF APPEALS
287 SCRA 94 [March 6, 1998]
FACTS: The question for decision is whether in assessing the docket fees to
be paid for the filing of an action for annulment or rescission of a contract of
sale, the value of the real property, subject matter of the contract, should be
used as basis, or whether the action should be considered as one which is not
capable of pecuniary estimation and therefore the fee charged should be a flat
rate of P400.00 as provided in Rule 141, Section 7(b)(1) of the Rules of Court.
Polgas argued that an action for annulment or rescission of a contract of sale
of real property is a real action and, therefore, the amount of the docket fees to
be paid by Dagul should be based either on the assessed value of the property,
subject matter of the action, or its estimated value as alleged in the complaint.
Since Dagul alleged that the land, in which they claimed an interest as heirs,
had been sold for P4,378,000.00 to Polgas, this amount should be considered the
estimated value of the land for the purpose of determining the docket fees.
Dagul countered that an action for annulment or rescission of a contract of
sale of real property is incapable of pecuniary estimation and, so, the docket
fees should be the fixed amount of P400.00 in Rule 141, Section 7(b).
HELD: Dagul is correct. “In determining whether an action is one the subject
matter of which is not capable of pecuniary estimation, this Court has adopted
the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the principal action or remedy
sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is
considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the
municipal courts or in the courts of first instance would depend on the amount of
the claim. “
However, where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a
sum of money, or where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a
consequence of, the principal relief sought, like in suits to have the defendant
perform his part of the contract (specific performance) and in actions for
support, or for annulment of a judgment or to foreclose a mortgage, this Court
has considered such actions as cases where the subject of the litigation may not
be estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable exclusively by courts of first
instance.”
“The rationale of the rule is plainly that the second class cases, besides the
determination of damages, demand an inquiry into other factors which the law
has deemed to be more within the competence of courts of first instance, which
45
were the lowest courts of record at the time that the first organic laws of the
Judiciary were enacted allocating jurisdiction.”
“Actions for specific performance of contracts have been expressly
pronounced to be exclusively cognizable by courts of first instance and no
cogent reason appears, and none is here advanced by the parties, why an action
for rescission (or resolution) should be differently treated, a "rescission" being a
counterpart, so to speak, of ‘specific performance’.”
“In both cases, the court would certainly have to undertake an investigation
into facts that would justify one act or the other. No award for damages may be
had in an action for rescission without first conducting an inquiry into matters
which would justify the setting aside of a contract. Issues of the same nature
may be raised by a party against whom an action for rescission has been
brought, or by the plaintiff himself.”
“It is, therefore, difficult to see why a prayer for damages in an action for
rescission should be taken as the basis for concluding such action as one
capable of pecuniary estimation — a prayer which must be included in the main
action if plaintiff is to be compensated for what he may have suffered as a result
of the breach committed by defendant, and not later on precluded from
recovering damages by the rule against splitting a cause of action and
discouraging multiplicity of suits.”
“Thus, although eventually the result may be the recovery of land, it is the
nature of the action as one for rescission of contract which is controlling.”
“Since the action of Polgas against Dagul is solely for annulment or rescission
which is not susceptible of pecuniary estimation, the action should not be
confused and equated with the ‘value of the property’ subject of the transaction;
that by the very nature of the case, the allegations, and specific prayer in the
complaint, sans any prayer for recovery of money and/or value of the
transaction, or for actual or compensatory damages, the assessment and
collection of the legal fees should not be intertwined with the merits of the case
and/or what may be its end result.”
TOTALITY RULE
Now, continuing with Section 33, it says there in paragraph [1]:
“Provided further, That where there are several claims or causes of actions
between the same or different parties, embodied in the same complaint, the
amount of the demand shall be the totality of the claims in all the causes of
action, irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the same or
different transactions.”
What do you call that rule? The TOTALITY RULE.
ILLUSTRATION: Joinder of causes of action. The defendant secured from me two or more
loans. Let’s say, apat na utang covered by four (4) promissory notes and all of them are
due and he has not paid me any. Let's say each note covers a principal amount of P75,000.
Now, I decided to file one complaint embodying my four causes of action against him
although I have the option also to file four separate complaints. If you will look at the value
of each claim which is P75,000 that is triable by the MTC. But if you will add the four
claims that will be P300,000.00.
Q: Which will prevail? The amount of each of the claim or the total?
A: The total amount will prevail. So it should be filed in the RTC. That is the totality rule.
Never mind that there are four (4) separate loans because the law says “irrespective of
whatever the cause of action arose out of the same or different transactions.” Now in that
example, there is only one plaintiff and one defendant. The plaintiff has four claims
46
against the same defendant. Now suppose there are 4 plaintiffs suing the same defendant
in what is called in procedure as joinder of causes of action and joinder of parties.
EXAMPLE: There are four (4) passengers riding on a public vehicle. They were all
injured when the bus met an accident and all of them were hospitalized. So after they
were discharged, the four of them wanted to sue the bus company for damages arising
from contract of carriage or culpa contractual. Since they hired the same lawyer, the
lawyer said, “Why will I file 4 complaints? Isahin na lang. I will join them.” In effect, he
joined 4 causes of action.
Q: The same question will arise. What will be now the basis of jurisdiction?
The claim of every plaintiff or the total claims of the 4 plaintiffs?
A: The total claims. You apply the totality rule because the law says “where there are
several claims or cause of action between the same or different parties.” So whether the
parties are the same or the parties are different embodied in the same complaint the
amount of the demand shall be the totality of the claims the totality rule applies in both
situations.
We will now go to paragraph [2] of Section 33.
[2] Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and
unlawful detainer: Provided, That when, in such cases, the defendant raises the
question of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be
resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall
be resolved only to determine the issue of possession. x x x x”
This is related to the Law on Property – FORCIBLE ENTRY (recovery of physical
possession, e.g. squatting) and UNLAWFUL DETAINER (e.g. you eject a lessee does not pay
his rent.) – MTC lahat iyan. The two cases should not be confused with accion publiciana
which is also the recovery of possession but that is a better right. Now, in unlawful
detainer, the plaintiff also prays not only to eject the defendant but also to claim for back
rentals or the reasonable amount of the use and occupation of the property in case of
forcible entry.
Q: Suppose the unpaid rentals already amount to almost half a million pesos
– so, unlawful detainer plus back rentals of half a million. Where should the case
be filed?
A: The case should still be filed with the MTC. What determines jurisdiction is the nature
of the action, and not the amount of recoverable rentals. Kahit na one (1) million pa yan,
MTC pa rin yan.
Q: In an action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer, can the party present
evidence of ownership?
A: The general rule is NO because the MTC cannot adjudicate ownership. That has to be
threshed out in the proper civil action in the RTC. But if evidence of ownership is presented
in the forcible entry or unlawful detainer case, it is only incidental and it is only resolved to
determine the issue of possession. But the declaration of ownership is not final – that is
only prima facie. The question of ownership must be litigated in a separate action in the
RTC.
Let us now proceed to the third paragraph of Section 33 as amended by R.A. 7691:
[3] Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title
to, or possession of, real property or any interest therein where the assessed
value of the property or interest therein does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos
(P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value
does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages
of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs:
Provided,
That in cases of land not declared for tax purposes, the value of such property
shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lots. (As amended by
RA 7691)
47
Aside from forcible entry and unlawful detainer, MTCs have now jurisdiction over other
real actions like accion publiciana and accion reinvidicatoria cases where the assessed
value of the land should be P20,000 or less. In Metro Manila, it is P50,000 or less. That is
the amendment brought about by RA 7691 which expanded the jurisdiction of the MTC.
B.) DELEGATED JURISDICTION OF THE MTC
Sec. 34. Delegated Jurisdiction in Cadastral and Land Registration Cases. MetTCs, MTCs and MCTCs may be assigned by the Supreme Court to hear and
determine cadastral or land registration cases covering lots where there is no
controversy or opposition, or contested lots where the value of which does not
exceed One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00), such value to be ascertained by
the affidavit of the claimant or by agreement of the respective claimants if
there are more than one, or from the corresponding tax declarations of the real
property. Their decisions in these cases shall be appealable in the same manner
as decisions of the RTCs. (As amended by RA 7691)
Review: These are related to your study of Land, Titles and Deeds (The Property
Registration Decree) When you file a petition for land registration, the object is to have
your property registered and fall under the Torrens System of the Land Registration.
Patituluhan ba! Now, what is the difference between a land registration proceeding and a
cadastral proceeding? Cadastral is compulsory registration.
Q: Now, what is this delegated jurisdiction all about?
A: It refers only to cadastral and land registration cases which involve the titling of
property under the Torrens system or cadastral land registration.
Under the Property Registration Decree, only the RTC has authority to entertain land
registration and cadastral cases. But now, Section 34 gives the Supreme Court the
authority to DELEGATE MTCs to hear and decide land registration and cadastral cases
under the following conditions:
1.) when there is no controversy or nobody is contesting your petition; or
2.) even if the petition is contested where the value of the land to be titled does not
exceed P100,000.
In which case, these MTCs can decide and their decisions are appealable directly to the
CA. Para bang acting RTC sila ba. That’s what it is called delegated jurisdiction. ‘Delegate’
means it really has to be assigned to you.
Now do not confuse this P100,000 (Section 34) with the P20,000 under Section 33.
Section 34 deals with cadastral and land registration cases. Section 33 involves civil cases
(accion publiciana, etc.)
C.) SPECIAL JURISDICTION OF MTC
Sec. 35. Special jurisdiction in certain cases.
- In the absence of all
the Regional Trial Judges in a province or city, any Metropolitan Trial Judge,
Municipal Trial Judge, Municipal Circuit Trial Judge may hear and decide
petitions for a writ of habeas corpus or applications for bail in criminal cases
in the province or city where the absent Regional Trial Judges sit.
This is what we call special jurisdiction. That only applies to two (2) types of cases: (1) Habeas
corpus and (2) hearing of petitions for bail.
Remember that habeas corpus is not within the jurisdiction of the MTC. It is with the RTC. Also,
the hearing on petition for bail, RTC yan because the offense may be a heinous one, but under the
law on criminal procedure you can file a petition for bail to have your temporary freedom while the
case is going on. That’s supposed to be in the RTC.
But suppose there is no available RTC judge, all of them are sick or all of them are attending a
convention (this actually happened in Davao in 1990) Section 35 provides that the MTC, in the
absence of RTC judges, can hear and decide on habeas corpus case petitions and applications or
48
petitions for bail in criminal cases. So acting pa rin yan because they are urgent and the liberty of a
person is at stake.
That is allowed because of the urgency of the situation. There is no need for a SC authorization.
However, this is only allowed in the absence of the RTC judges. But if the RTC judge comes back, he
has to take over the petition.
So with that we are through with the jurisdiction of our courts. So we will now proceed to
remedial law proper.
49
