Sy-Vargas vs. Estate of Ogsos
Facts: Ogsos, Sr. and the Heirs of Fermina Pepico
in 1994 entered into a Contract of Lease covering 5 parcels of agricultural
land owned by the latter. Ogsos, Sr. agreed to pay the Heirs 290.95
liquid-kilogram of centrifugal sugar every crop year, starting from as lease
rental. In, 1996 the lease contract was extended for 3 more years. On that same
year, the said contract was amended, and the lease rental modified from lkg.
centrifugal sugar every crop year to P 150k cash.
Sy-Vargas
one of the heirs, filed a Complaint for Specific Performance and Damages
against Ogsos, before RTC claiming that the lease rentals were not paid. RTC declared Ogsos’ counterclaim as
compulsory; thus holding that the payment of the required docket fees was no
longer necessary and ordered Sy to pay Ogsos. CA affirmed RTC.
Issue: WON the CA correctly ruled that respondents’
counterclaim for damages is compulsory and not permissive in nature, and thus,
no payment of docket fees is required.
Held: Permissive. The nature of a counterclaim is
determinative of whether or not the counterclaimant is required to pay docket
fees. A counterclaim is permissive if it does not arise out of or is not
necessarily connected with the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim. It
is essentially an independent claim that may be filed separately in another
case.
By
reason of the respondents’ counterclaim being permissive, and not compulsory, Ogsos
are required to pay docket fees. However, it must be clarified that
respondents’ failure to pay the required docket fees, per se, should not
necessarily lead to the dismissal of the counterclaim. While the court acquires
jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fee,
its non-payment at the time of the filing of the initiatory pleading does not
automatically cause its dismissal provided that: (a) the fees are paid within a
reasonable period; and (b) there was no intention on the part of the claimant
to defraud the government.
Ogsos
cannot be faulted for non-payment of docket fees in connection with their
counterclaim, primarily because as early 2006, the RTC had already found such
counterclaim to be compulsory in nature. As such, the lower courts did not
require respondents to pay docket fees and even proceeded to rule on their
entitlement thereto.
No comments:
Post a Comment