05 Jurisdiction of the MTC

of 9
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
  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 than6 years until death penalty. o, necessarily 6 years or !elow, sa MTC. ame with ci ilcases.ummary of jurisdiction of MTC#A.$As to ori%inal jurisdiction & ection ''(.$As to dele%ated jurisdiction & ection ')C.$As to special jurisdiction & ection '* A.) EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE MTC Sec. 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courtsand Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in civil cases . - Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:1)Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and proate proceedings, testate and intestate, including the grant o! provisional re ediesin proper cases, #here the value o! the personal propert$, estate, or a ount o!the de and does not exceed T#o hundred thousand pesos %&'((,(((.(() or, in Metro Manila #here such personal propert$, estate, or a ount o! the de and does notexceed !our hundred thousand pesos %&((,(((.((), exclusive o! interest, da ageso! #hatever *ind, attorne$+s !ees, litigation expenses, and costs, the a ount o! #hich ust e speci!icall$ alleged: Provided  , That interest, da ages o! #hatever *ind, attorne$+s !ees, litigation expenses, and costs shall e included in the deter ination o! the !iling !ees: Provided further  , That #here there areseveral clai s or causes o! actions et#een the sa e or di!!erent parties,e odied in the sa e co plaint, the a ount o! the de and shall e the totalit$o! the clai s in all the causes o! action, irrespective o! #hether the causes o!action arose out o! the sa e or di!!erent transactions. +ell if you know the jurisdiction of the RTC on money claims and pro!ate cases,automatically you will also know that of the MTC. nder the law, it is only the principalclaim or the main claim which is computed. Interest, dama%es of whate er kind, attorneysfees, liti%ation expenses and cost are not included in determinin% the jurisdiction.- en if the amount of dama%es and attorneys fees do not determine jurisdiction, theymust still !e speci/cally alle%ed in the complaint for the purpose of payment of docketfees. Thus, the hi%her the amount one is claimin% the hi%her the /lin% fee.o with that , we will now %o to decided cases in ol in% docket fees.  JURISPRUDENCE ON THE FILING FEE IN CIVIL CASES: Rule 000, the /lin% of criminal action, the ci il aspect is deemed instituted. If it claimsfor moral and exemplary dama%es, the /lin% fees should !e paid immediately. If notstated, then it will !e a lien in the jud%ment. Compensatory dama%es are exempt from the/lin% of the fee. Technically, a complaint in a ci il case is not considered as /led unless you pay thecomplete amount of the docket fee. - en if a complaint is /led, say, on 1ecem!er 0 andthe payment is made only on the 1ecem!er ), the complaint is deemed o2cially /led onthe 1ecem!er ) when the payment of the whole amount is e3ected. This is so material for the purpose of prescription. uppose today 1ecem!er 0 is thelast day for the /lin% of the complaint and the whole amount is not fully paid. 451ecem!er , the action is prescri!ed already. Thus, the court ac7uires no jurisdiction o erthe case until the /lin% of the fee for the whole amount is made.In the case of  41  MANCHESTER DEVELOPMENT CORP. vs.   CA 0)8 CRA *69ACT# The plainti3 /les a complaint and paid the docket fee !ut he did notspecify the amount of the dama%es he was claimin%. :e contended that he isclaimin% for moral dama%es in such amount as the court will %rant. Respondentcontended, on the other hand, that it cannot !e done, there is a necessity tostate the exact amount of the dama%es in order to determine the correct amountof the docket fee. o the plainti3 amended the complaint and paid the !alanceof the docket fees.I-# +hether or not the su!se7uent amendment cures the defect;:-<1# 5o, the defect is incura!le. Thus, the action has to !e dismissed. Thecourt ac7uires no jurisdiction o er the case. The remedy is to re=/le thecomplaint and pay a%ain the complete amount of the docket fee. The priorpayment made is forfeited in as much as the defect in the /rst complaint isincura!le.o !ased on the MANCHESTER rulin%, you cannot cure the defect !y merely amendin%the complaints. The moment the case is /led, the court ac7uires jurisdiction. >ou cannot!y yourself confer jurisdiction. ?ery harsh noh; :owe er, the C, after re@ectin% on what itsaid in the case of MANCHESTER , realied the harshness of their decision. This Manchesterrulin% was relaxed in the su!se7uent case of SUN INSURANCE OFFICE which now the%o ernin% law# SUN INSURANCE OFFICE LTD. vs.  COURT OF APPEALS 0B CRA B) D08E8F:-<1# Thus, the Court rules as follows#0.It is not simply the /lin% of the complaint or appropriate initiatorypleadin%, !ut the payment of the prescri!ed docket fee, that ests a trial courtwith jurisdiction o er the su!ject matter or nature of the action. +here the /lin%of the initiatory pleadin% is not accompanied !y payment of the docket fee, thecourt may allow payment of the fee within a reasona!le time !ut in no case!eyond the applica!le prescripti e or re%lementary period..The same rule applies to permissi e counterclaims, third party claims andsimilar pleadin%s, which shall not !e considered /led until and unless the /lin%fee prescri!ed therefore is paid. The court may also allow payment of said feewithin a reasona!le time !ut also in no case !eyond its applica!le prescripti e orre%lementary period.'.+here the trial court ac7uires jurisdiction o er a claim !y the /lin% of theappropriate pleadin% and payment of the prescri!ed /lin% fee !ut, su!se7uently,the jud%ment awards a claim not speci/ed in the pleadin%, or if speci/ed thesame has !een left for determination !y the court, the additional /lin% feetherefor shall constitute a lien on the jud%ment. It shall !e the responsi!ility of the Clerk of Court or his duly authoried deputy to enforce said lien and assessand collect the additional fee.9or example, I make a partial payment of the docket fee !ecause of inade7uacy of money. nder the SUN INSURANCE  rulin%, kun% kulan% an% !ayad, huwa% naman%i=dismiss an% kasoG Hi e the party a reasona!le time to pay the !alance. +hen the /lin%of the initiatory Jcomplaint$ pleadin% is not accompanied !y the payment of the docketfees, the court may allow the payment of the fee within a reasona!le time !ut in no case!eyond the prescripti e period.K Meanin%, if !y the time you paid the !alance, na%prescri!e na an% cause of action, ah wala naG o, pro ided that the action has notprescri!ed. The same rule applies to permissi e counterclaims. o this answers the 7uestion# 42  Q: Is the defed!t #$%&ed t '!( the d *et fee+ A# It 1-L-51# if the counterclaim is permissi e, dapat ma%!ayad ka. If thecounterclaim is compulsory, li!re yanGAnd the third rule laid down in Sun Insurance # if the jud%ment awards a claim notspeci/ed in the pleadin%s, the /lin% fee therefor shall !e a lien in the jud%ment. It shall !ethe responsi!ility of the clerk of Court or his duly=authoried deputy to enforce the lien,assess and collect the additional fee. Q: ,he ! th%s ' ss%#$( h!''e+ A# That can happen for example if I ask for dama%es. A man was hospitalied !ecauseof physical injuries. 5a% /le siya n% kaso. a!i n% court, may dama%es ito. o   the courtacknowled%ed the claim of L',. (ut after the case is /led, di pa rin siya naka!ayadsa hospital. After /lin%, marami pan% %astosG o in other words he mi%ht ask from thecourt another L *,. Q: C! the  -t !/!d the P 012111+ A# >es, !ecause the additional expenses came only after the /lin% of the case. Theadditional expenses occurred only after /lin% the case. o na%kulan% n%ayon an% docketfee. (ayaran mo, dont dismiss the caseG The Sun Insurance  is a leadin% case on docket fee. It was followed with a third case in1ecem!er 08E8 which further clari/ed the SUN INSURANCE  rulin%. This is the case of  TACA3 vs. RTC OF TAGUM2 DAVAO DEL NORTE 0E CRA )'' D08E8F54T-# +hen this case was /led, wala pa yon% INSURANCE . The %uidin% rulewas still MANCHESTER . (ut while this was pendin% luma!as na yon% SUNINSURANCE .9ACT#    The case was for reco ery of land with dama%es Jaccion pu!liciana$.o it is not purely for dama%es. o how will you assess the /llin% fees; (ased onthe alue of the land, !inayaran n% plainti3 an% docket fee. 1efendant mo ed todismiss !ased on MANCHESTER !ecause the plainti3 did not specify in thecomplaint how much dama%es he was claimin%. 5ow the RTC of Ta%um deniesthe motion to dismiss. The defendant %oes to the C citin% MANCHESTER .4f course sa!i n% C wala na an% Manchester !ecause of un Insurance. (uthere is another rule#:-<1# 1alawa an% /lin% fee# the assessed alue of the land and for thedama%es. There are two J$ options here# J0.$ un% na!ayaran an% docket fee forthe reco ery of land pero wala an% para sa dama%es, do not dismiss the entirecaseG That is cray if you will dismiss the entire case kasi na%!ayad man siya n%docket fee for the reco ery of the land. Nust do not consider the claim for thedama%es. 4r, J.$ second option, citin% SUN INSURANCE , %i e him reasona!letime to pay the !alance. o thatOs the case of TACAY  .+here the action in ol es real property and a related claim for dama%es aswell, the le%al fees shall !e assessed on the !asis of !oth Ja$ the alue of theproperty and J!$ the total amount of related dama%es sou%ht. The court ac7uires jurisdiction o er the action if the /lin% of the initiatory pleadin% is accompanied!y the payment of the re7uisite fees, or, if the fees are not paid at the time of the /lin% of the pleadin%, as of the time of full payment of the fees within suchreasona!le time as the court may %rant, unless, of course, prescription has set inthe meantime.K5ow, there are other interestin% cases on the issue on docket fees. 43  FILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORP. vs . COURT OF APPEALS 0B0 CRA 6B) D08E8F9ACT# Adrian dela La sued all oil companies Jhell, Caltex, Mo!il, etc.$ of the Lhilippines for infrin%ement of patent with prayer for the payment of reasona!le compensation for dama%es. Accordin% to him, these companies usedin their operation a certain type of machine which he claimed he in ented. :ispatent was infrin%ed. Thus, all these companies are all lia!le to him for royalties. The estimated yearly royalty due him is L'6,*B. ince the iolation has !eenfor many years already, his claims reached millions. The trial court ordered himto pay L8)*,6'6.8 as docket fee. :e had no money so he 7uestioned it. o sa!iri% court# +e will allow you to /le the case and the docket fee is deducti!le fromwhate er jud%ment of dama%es shall !e awarded !y the court.K o, paran% /lenow pay later.:-<1# There is no such thin% as /le now pay later. 5o justi/cation can !efound to con ert such payment to somethin% akin to a contin%ent fee whichwould depend on the result of the case. :indi pwede sa %o!yerno yanG -xampleis kun% matalo ka sa kaso & the case is dismissed. Ta!la an% %o!yerno; o, dipwede yanG9ilin% fees are intended to take care of court expenses in the handlin% of cases in terms of cost of supplies, use of e7uipments, salaries and frin%e !ene/tsof personnel, etc., computed as to man hours used in handlin% of each case. Thepayment of said fees therefore, cannot !e made dependent on the result of theaction taken, without entailin% tremendous losses to the %o ernment and to the judiciary in particular.KAlam ninyo, an% dapat sana nOyan% %inawa, na% /le sya n% motion to allow him toliti%ate as a pauper. In le%al ethics, pwede yan sa a!o%ado & yun% contin%ent fee#Attorney, will you handle my case; +ala akon% pera. I will o3er a contin%ent fee.K 4kay,Ill handle your case. La%=talo, wala kan% utan%. La% panalo, kalahati sa akin.K >anGLwede yan. Lero sa %o!yerno, wala yan !ecause usually the judiciary %ets its !ud%et fromthe /lin% fees. LACSON vs . RE3ES 0E CRA B89ACT# There was a case /led and then the lawyer /led a motion to direct theplainti3 to pay him his attorneys fees & a motion for payment of attorneys fees.o sa!i n% court# Attorney, ma%!ayad ka n% docket fee.K (akit; Motion n%alan% yan, may docket fee pa; Hra!eehGK:-<1# 5o, !ayad ka uli. It may !e true that the claim for attorneyOs fees was!ut an incident in the main case, still, it is not an escape al e from the paymentof docket fees !ecause as in all actions, whether separate or as an o3shoot of apendin% proceedin%, the payment of docket fees is mandatory. The docket feeshould !e paid !efore the court would alidly act on the motion.K SUSON vs . COURT OF APPEALS BE CRA E) DAu%ust 0, 088B$9ACT# Mort /led a case a%ainst Charles in <eyte. After /lin%, the courtdismissed the case !ecause it should !e /led in Ce!u. Mort wrote a letter to the42ce of the Court Administrator J4CA$ askin% that the docket fee paid in <eyte!e considered applica!le to Ce!u. 4CA %ranted his re7uest.Charles 7uestioned it !ecause of the rule that the payment of docket fee is jurisdictional. 44

Reflection c

Jul 23, 2017
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks