In Isabel G. Ramones v. Spouses Teodorico Guimoc, Jr. and Elenita Guimoc, the Supreme Court held that a court can still acquire jurisdiction over a case even if the plaintiff initially paid insufficient filing fees, provided there was no intention to defraud the government. This ruling emphasizes that if the plaintiff relied on the assessment made by the Clerk of Court and acted in good faith, the court’s jurisdiction is valid, subject to the subsequent payment of the deficiency. This decision protects litigants from being penalized for errors made by court personnel and ensures that cases are decided on their merits rather than on technicalities of fee payment.

Good Faith vs. Full Payment: Examining Court Jurisdiction and Docket Fees

This case originated from an Information filed against Spouses Teodorico and Elenita Guimoc for Other Forms of Swindling under Article 316 (2) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). Isabel G. Ramones alleged that the spouses defrauded her by obtaining a loan of P663,000.00 with a promise to sell their house and lot, knowing that the property was already mortgaged. Initially, the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) required Ramones to pay P500.00 as docket fees, which she complied with. Subsequently, the MTC found Elenita guilty and ordered her to pay a fine and civil liabilities, while also directing Teodorico to pay a portion of the civil liabilities despite his acquittal. The spouses appealed, arguing that the MTC did not acquire jurisdiction due to the insufficient payment of docket fees, claiming Ramones should have paid around P9,960.00 based on the amount of damages sought.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MTC’s ruling but acquitted Elenita on reasonable doubt, maintaining the civil liabilities of both spouses. The RTC, however, did not address the issue of non-payment of correct filing fees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) initially affirmed the RTC, stating that the failure to pay docket fees did not preclude Ramones from recovering damages under the Rules of Criminal Procedure. However, upon reconsideration, the CA reversed its decision, holding that Supreme Court (SC) Circular No. 35-2004 required the payment of docket fees for claims of actual damages, and thus, the court a quo erred in awarding damages. The CA deleted the order for the spouses to pay their civil liabilities. The Supreme Court then took up the case to resolve whether the CA correctly deleted the award of damages.

The Supreme Court emphasized that while Rule 111 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure generally exempts actual damages from filing fees, exceptions exist, as outlined in Section 21, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, amended by A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC and reflected in SC Circular No. 35-2004. This provision requires the payment of filing fees in estafa cases if the offended party does not manifest an intent to separately prosecute the civil liability. To better understand the nuances of the rules regarding filing fees, consider this table:

Rule	Provision	Description
Rule 111, Rules of Criminal Procedure	Section 1	Generally, no filing fees are required for actual damages in criminal cases.
Rule 141, Rules of Court (as amended by A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC)	Section 21	Filing fees required in estafa cases if the offended party does not manifest intent to separately prosecute civil liability.

The Court then discussed its prior rulings in Manchester Development Corporation v. CA and Sun Insurance Office, Ltd v. Asuncion. In Manchester, the Court established that a court acquires jurisdiction only upon payment of the prescribed docket fee, but this ruling was clarified in Sun Insurance, which recognized that a more liberal interpretation is warranted when there is no intent to defraud the government and the party demonstrates a willingness to pay additional fees. The Court has since consistently held that when insufficient filing fees are initially paid without fraudulent intent, the Manchester rule does not apply.

Building on this principle, the Supreme Court cited several cases like Rivera v. del Rosario, Fil-Estate Golf and Development, Inc. v. Navarro, United Overseas Bank v. Ros, and The Heirs of Reinoso, Sr. v. CA, reiterating that jurisdiction is validly acquired upon full payment of docket fees as assessed by the clerk of court. The Court highlighted that if there is underpayment, the clerk of court must make a deficiency assessment, and the party filing the action is required to pay the deficiency, which becomes a lien on the judgment. This approach contrasts with penalizing a party for the omission of the clerk of court, especially when the party acted in good faith.

In the present case, the Supreme Court found that while the P500.00 initially paid by Ramones was insufficient, she paid the full amount of docket fees as assessed by the Clerk of Court of the MTC, supported by a certification. Moreover, Ramones consistently expressed her willingness to pay any additional fees. These actions, according to the Court, negate any bad faith or intent to defraud the government. Thus, the Supreme Court concluded that the court a quo properly acquired jurisdiction over the case, subject to Ramones paying the deficiency, which would then constitute a lien on the monetary awards in her favor, as stipulated in Section 2, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court:

Section 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 fees.

Furthermore, the Court noted that the respondents should have raised any concerns regarding the assessment of filing fees before the MTC. Instead, they actively participated in the proceedings and only questioned the alleged underpayment on appeal before the RTC, five years after the case was instituted. Citing United Overseas Bank, the Court invoked the doctrine of estoppel by laches, which prevents a party from belatedly raising jurisdictional issues after actively participating in the proceedings.

It has been held that a party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief against his opponent and, after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that same jurisdiction. By way of explaining the rule, it was further said that the question of whether or not the court had jurisdiction either over the subject matter of the action or the parties is not important in such cases because the party is barred from such conduct, not because the judgment or the order of the court is valid and conclusive as an adjudication, but for the reason that such a practice cannot be tolerated by reason of public policy.

Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the CA rulings and reinstated the order for Elenita and Teodorico to pay Ramones the amounts of P507,000.00 and P60,000.00, respectively, with legal interest. The interest rate was set at twelve percent (12%) per annum from June 30, 2006 (the date the Information was filed) until June 30, 2013, and six percent (6%) per annum from July 1, 2013, until full satisfaction. The MTC was directed to determine the deficient docket fees, which will constitute a lien on the monetary awards. Finally, the Court clarified that the decision only pertained to the respondents’ civil liabilities, as there was no further recourse against the rulings on the criminal aspect of the case.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the Court of Appeals correctly deleted the award of damages to Isabel G. Ramones due to the alleged insufficient payment of docket fees in the estafa case against Spouses Guimoc. The Supreme Court had to determine if the lower courts acquired jurisdiction despite the initial underpayment.
What is the significance of SC Circular No. 35-2004?	SC Circular No. 35-2004 outlines the guidelines for the allocation of legal fees collected under Rule 141 of the Rules of Court. It stipulates that in estafa cases, filing fees are required if the offended party does not manifest an intent to separately prosecute the civil liability.
What did the Supreme Court rule regarding the payment of deficient docket fees?	The Supreme Court ruled that if a plaintiff initially pays insufficient filing fees but does so in good faith, relying on the assessment of the Clerk of Court, the court still acquires jurisdiction over the case. However, the plaintiff is required to pay the deficiency, which constitutes a lien on the judgment.
What is the doctrine of estoppel by laches, and how does it apply in this case?	Estoppel by laches prevents a party from raising an issue belatedly after an unreasonable delay, implying abandonment of a right. In this case, the respondents were estopped from questioning the court’s jurisdiction due to the alleged underpayment of docket fees because they raised the issue for the first time on appeal, five years after the case was instituted.
What was the basis for the Supreme Court’s decision to reinstate the award of damages?	The Supreme Court reinstated the award of damages because Isabel G. Ramones paid the full amount of docket fees as assessed by the Clerk of Court, demonstrated good faith, and consistently manifested her willingness to pay any additional fees. The Court also applied the doctrine of estoppel by laches against the respondents.
What interest rates were applied to the monetary awards in this case?	The monetary awards were subject to a legal interest rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum from June 30, 2006, until June 30, 2013, and six percent (6%) per annum from July 1, 2013, until full satisfaction. These rates are consistent with existing jurisprudence on estafa cases.
What is the practical implication of this ruling for litigants?	This ruling protects litigants who act in good faith and rely on the assessment of court personnel when paying docket fees. It ensures that cases are decided on their merits rather than on technicalities related to fee payment, provided there is no intent to defraud the government.
What are the responsibilities of the Clerk of Court in cases of underpayment of docket fees?	When there is an underpayment of docket fees, the Clerk of Court or their authorized deputy is responsible for making a deficiency assessment. The party filing the action is then required to pay the deficiency, which becomes a lien on the judgment.
How does this case differentiate from the ruling in Manchester Development Corporation v. CA?	While Manchester established that a court acquires jurisdiction only upon full payment of docket fees, the Supreme Court clarified in subsequent cases, including this one, that a more liberal interpretation applies when there is no intent to defraud the government and the party demonstrates a willingness to pay additional fees, distinguishing it from the fraudulent practices in Manchester.

In summary, the Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of good faith in complying with procedural rules and clarifies the circumstances under which a court can acquire jurisdiction despite initial deficiencies in docket fee payments. The ruling provides a balanced approach, protecting litigants from being penalized for honest mistakes while ensuring that the government is not defrauded of its rightful dues.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: ISABEL G. RAMONES v. SPOUSES TEODORICO GUIMOC, JR. AND ELENITA GUIMOC, G.R. No. 226645, August 13, 2018