Proton Pilipinas vs. Banque Nationale De Paris CASE DIGEST -Civil Procedure - Commencement of action

Proton Pilipinas vs. Banque Nationale De Paris

Facts: Proton availed of the credit facilities of BNP and executed a corporate guarantee of the extent of US$2 million to guarantee its obligation. Under their trust agreement, Proton would receive imported motor vehicles and hold them in trust for BNP, to be applied to its obligations to it in case the vehicles are not sold, Proton would return them to BNP with the documents of title.

Proton failed to deliver the proceeds and to return the unsold motor vehicles. Proton’s guarantors refused to pay its obligation so BNP filed a complaint ordering them to pay the initial amount of US$2 million with accrued interest and other related charges. RTC Makati Clerk of Court assessed the docket fees at P352,000. The petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the complaint by BNP for failure to pay the correct docket fees thus preventing the RTC from acquiring jurisdiction over the case. In addition, the petitioners allege the prematurity of the complaint since BNP did not priorly send a demand letter.

The RTC denied the motion to dismiss and the subsequent MR. The CA denied the appeal by way of certiorari stating that Section 7(a), Rule 141 of the Rules of Court excludes interest accruing from the principal amount being claimed in the pleading in the computation of the prescribed filing fees. CA denied their MR.

The petitioners argue that pursuant to Administrative Circular 11-94, interests claimed should be included in the computation of the docket fees. Thus since BNP underpaid, RTC never acquired jurisdiction over the case.

Issue: WON the RTC fail to acquire jurisdiction over the case for insufficient docket fees.

Held: No. When the complaint was filed in 1998, Rule 141 had been amended by Administrative Circular 11-94.

The payment of the 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 (court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon payment of the prescribed docket fees)

BNP merely relied on the assessment made by the Clerk of Court which turned out to be incorrect. As priorly discussed, this is required under Rule 141, as amended by Administrative Circular 11-94, which was the rule applicable at the time. Thus, as the complaint currently stands, BNP cannot claim the interest unless respondent is allowed by motion to amend its complaint within a reasonable time and specify the precise amount of interest Proton owe and pay the corresponding docket fee.