06 - Metrobank V Perez

625 Phil.
580
FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 181842, February 05, 2010 ]
METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST CO. AND SOLIDBANK

CORPORATION, PETITIONERS, VS. BERNARDITA H. PEREZ,
REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT PATRIA H. PEREZ,
RESPONDENT.
DECISION
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
On September 17, 1997, petitioner Solidbank Corporation (Solidbank) forged a lease

contract with Bernardita H. Perez (respondent), represented by her attorney-in-fact Patria H.
Perez[1], over two parcels of land located in Sta. Maria, Bulacan for a period of 15 years
commencing on January 1, 1998. Solidbank was to, as it did, construct a one-storey building
specifically suited for bank premises.
Solidbank was later acquired by its co-petitioner Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company
(Metrobank), the latter as the surviving entity.
On September 24, 2002, Metrobank sent a notice of termination of the lease contract
effective September 30, 2002.[2] Respondent, objecting to the termination, filed a complaint
for breach of contract and damages against herein petitioners Solidbank and Metrobank
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan praying that, inter alia, herein
petitioners be ordered to pay her "the would be unrealized income for the ensuing idle
months of the said building."[3]
Metrobank asserted in its Answer with Counterclaim, however, that the lease contract did not
prohibit pre-termination by the parties.
After respondent rested her case, Metrobank was, by Order of January 12, 2006, declared to
have waived its right to present evidence after its counsel incurred several unexcused
absences.
By Decision of April 5, 2006, Branch 22 of the Malolos RTC ruled in favor of respondent,
disposing as follows:
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered in favor

of the plaintiff and against the defendants ordering the latter, jointly and
severally:
1. To pay the plaintiff the amount of P212,322.60 as unrealized income before
the filing of the case (Sept. 2002 to Feb. 2003);
2. To pay the plaintiff the amount of P2,013,753.03 as unrealized (income)
after the filing of the case up to present (March 2003 to March 2006);
3. To pay the plaintiff the would be 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. To pay plaintiff the amount of P200,000.00 as moral damages;
5. To pay plaintiff the amount of P100,000.00 as exemplary damages;
6. To pay plaintiff the amount of P100,000.00 as attorney's fees and
7. To pay plaintiff as litigation expenses.
SO ORDERED.[4] (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
On appeal, Metrobank challenged, in the main, the 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.
By Decision[5] of November 23, 2007, the appellate court affirmed that of the trial court[6]
and denied, by Resolution of February 21, 2008, a reconsideration thereof. Hence, the
present petition for review on certiorari.
In her Comment, 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."[7]
In sustaining respondent's justification for nonpayment of additional docket fees, the

appellate court held:
For one, plaintiff-appellee Perez could not have been certain at the time she filed
the Complaint that defendant-appellant Metrobank would no longer return to the
Leased Property. It would have been speculative therefore on the part of plaintiff-
appellee Perez to allege in her Complaint any unrealized income for the remaining
period of the Lease Contract considering that the possibility of defendant-
appellant 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. In light of her predicament,
plaintiff-appellee 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.[8] (italics in the original; underscoring supplied)
The petition is partly meritorious.
In Manchester Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[9] the 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[10]
which was echoed in the 2005 case of Heirs of Bertuldo Hinog v. Melico, the pertinent portion
of the decision in the latter case reads:
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.[11]
(emphasis and underscoring supplied)
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.
Metrobank's position fails. 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. It bears
recalling that the building constructed on respondent's leased premises was specifically
constructed to house a bank, hence, the idle period before another occupant with like
business may opt to lease would be difficult to project.
On Metrobank's raising the issue of lack of jurisdiction over the complaint for respondent's
failure to pay the correct docket fees, apropos is the ruling in National Steel Corporation v.
Court of Appeals: [12]
Although the payment of the proper docket fees is a jurisdictional requirement,

the trial court may 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.[13] (emphasis and underscoring
supplied)
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.
The foregoing disposition notwithstanding, respondent is 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 (underscoring supplied),
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.
[14] (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
A word on the grant of moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees.
The Court notes that respondent's witness-attorney-in-fact testified only on the existence of
the lease agreement and unrealized income due to pre-termination. Since an award of moral
damages is predicated on a categorical showing from the claimant that emotional and mental
sufferings were actually experienced, absent any evidence thereon in the present case,[15]
the award must be disallowed. And so too must the award of attorney's fees, absent an
indication in the trial court's Decision of the factual basis thereof, the award having been
merely stated in the dispositive portion.[16] Parenthetically, while respondent prayed in her
complaint for the award of attorney's fees and testified during the trial that:
Q: Now, in connection with the filing of this case and hiring your lawyer, do you
have agreement with your counsel with respect to attorney's fees?
A: P100,000.00 acceptance fees.
Q: What about appearance fees?
A: I forgot already, sir.,[17]
there is no showing that she submitted any documentary evidence in support thereof.
WHEREFORE, the petition is in part GRANTED. The November 23, 2007 Decision of the
Court of Appeals is MODIFIED. The Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos,
Bulacan is ordered to reassess, determine and collect additional fees that should be paid by
respondent within fifteen (15) days, in accordance with the foregoing discussion of the Court,
provided 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.
In all other respects, the appellate court's Decision is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, C.J., Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin, and Villarama, Jr., JJ., concur.
[1] Special Power of Attorney executed by Bernardita H. Perez; records, p. 9.
[2] Rollo, p. 82
[3] Records, pp. 6-7.
[4] Id. at 247-248.
[5] Penned by Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. with the concurrence of then CA Justice Jose C.
Mendoza (now Supreme Court Associate Justice) and Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr.
[6] CA rollo, pp. 59-84.
[7] Rollo, p. 127.
[8] Id. at 58-59.
[9] G.R. No. L-75919, May 7, 1987, 149 SCRA 562.
[10] G.R. Nos. 79937-39, February 13, 1989, 170 SCRA 274.
[11] G.R. No. 140954, April 12, 2005, 455 SCRA 460, 475.
[12] G.R. No. 123215, February 2, 1999, 302 SCRA 522.
[13] Id. at 531.
[14] Proton Pilipinas Corporation v. Banque Nationale de Paris, G.R. No. 151242, June 15,
2005, 460 SCRA 260, 278 citing Ayala Corporation v. Madayag.
[15] Bank of Commerce v. Sps. Prudencio San Pablo, Jr., G.R. No. 167848, April 27, 2007,
522 SCRA 713, 715.

[16] Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123238, Sept. 22, 2008, 566 SCRA
124, 137-138.
[17] TSN, May 20, 2004, p. 21.
Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date created: December 11, 2014

This page was dynamically generated by the E-Library Content Management System
Supreme Court E-Library

06 - Metrobank V Perez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

06 - Metrobank V Perez

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

06 - Metrobank V Perez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

625 Phil.

[ G.R. No. 181842, February 05, 2010 ]

METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST CO. AND SOLIDBANK

CARPIO MORALES, J.:

On September 17, 1997, petitioner Solidbank Corporation (Solidbank) forged a lease

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered in favor

SO ORDERED.[4] (emphasis and underscoring supplied)

In sustaining respondent's justification for nonpayment of additional docket fees, the

The petition is partly meritorious.

In Manchester Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[9] the Court held that a

Plainly, while the payment of prescribed docket fee is a jurisdictional requirement,

Although the payment of the proper docket fees is a jurisdictional requirement,

and jurisprudence, viz:

The exception contemplated as to claims not specified or to claims although

A: P100,000.00 acceptance fees.

Q: What about appearance fees?

A: I forgot already, sir.,[17]

In all other respects, the appellate court's Decision is AFFIRMED.

[1] Special Power of Attorney executed by Bernardita H. Perez; records, p. 9.

[3] Records, pp. 6-7.

[4] Id. at 247-248.

[6] CA rollo, pp. 59-84.

[7] Rollo, p. 127.

[8] Id. at 58-59.

[9] G.R. No. L-75919, May 7, 1987, 149 SCRA 562.

[12] G.R. No. 123215, February 2, 1999, 302 SCRA 522.

[13] Id. at 531.

2005, 460 SCRA 260, 278 citing Ayala Corporation v. Madayag.

522 SCRA 713, 715.

[17] TSN, May 20, 2004, p. 21.

Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date created: December 11, 2014

Supreme Court E-Library

You might also like