SECOND DIVISION
THE
HEIRS OF THE LATE G.R.
No. 138894
PRESIDENT
FERDINAND E.
MARCOS,
Petitioners,
Present:
PUNO,
J., Chairman,
- versus - SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
AZCUNA,
and
GARCIA,
JJ.
PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION
ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, Promulgated:
Respondent.
July 20, 2006
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
PUNO, J.:
This is a petition for review on
certiorari filed pursuant to Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which
seeks to reverse and set aside the resolution[1]
of the Sandiganbayan dated February 15, 1999 which dismissed petitioners’ complaint[2]
in Civil Case No. 0183 for lack of jurisdiction due to their alleged failure
and refusal to pay the correct amount of docket fees.
The antecedent
facts are as follows:
On
In
connection with these orders of sequestration, freezing or takeover, various
civil actions for reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution, and damages
were instituted by the PCGG in the name of the Republic of the
On
Alleging
ownership over the aforementioned shares which were ceded by Benedicto to the
respondent, the petitioners filed with the Sandiganbayan a complaint for
declaration of ownership, accounting, and damages against the respondent PCGG on
April 17, 1998, praying that the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos and/or his
estate be declared the true and lawful owner of such shares, and for the respondent
to render a full accounting of said shares, and to pay the petitioners Four
Hundred Thousand (P400,000.00) Pesos for moral damages, Four Hundred
Thousand (P400,000.00) Pesos for exemplary damages and Two Hundred
Thousand (P200,000.00) Pesos for attorney’s fees as well as the costs of
the suit. The petitioners paid a filing
fee of Four Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty (P4,850.00) Pesos.
On
On
October 14, 1998, the Sandiganbayan, in open court, issued an order[8]
directing petitioners to show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction due to their alleged nonpayment of the prescribed
docket fee, more particularly the additional amount of One Million Three
Hundred Twenty-Six Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty-Five (P1,326,955.00)
Pesos considering the prayer in the complaint that the ownership of the Two
Million Six Hundred Fifty-Two Thousand (2,652,000) shares of stock of ETPI (with
a par value of One Hundred [P100.00] Pesos per share) be judicially declared
in favor of the petitioners.
Following
one request for extension, the petitioners filed their “Response to Show Cause
Order dated October 14, 1998,”[9]
on November 17, 1998, stating that the application of Section 7 of Rule 141 of
the Revised Rules of Court in relation to Section 4 of R.A. No. 7975 would
result in an unconstitutional diminution or modification of the petitioners’
substantive rights under Section 11 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1606,[10]
which, according to petitioners, had not been expressly nor impliedly repealed
by R.A. Nos. 7975 and 8249,[11]
which were two later amendatory laws to the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Furthermore, they contend that even in the
absence of any constitutional proscription, the Sandiganbayan is of the same
level as the Court of Appeals, thus, Sections 4 and 5[12]
of Rule 141 should be applied as to the filing fees to be paid.
On
The
petitioners filed their motion for reconsideration[14]
on
The
Sandiganbayan, in a resolution[16]
dated
A.
The inference
reached by the Sandiganbayan that the schedule of fees for Regional Trial
Courts under Section 7 of Rule 141 applies or should be the one made to apply
to it is not readily discernible in Section 4 of R.A. No. 7975.
B.
Section 4 of
R.A. No. 7975 which makes the “Rules of Court promulgated by the Supreme Court…
apply to all cases and proceedings filed with the Sandiganbayan” would result
in an unconstitutional application of Rule 141 or any section thereof for that
matter.
C.
R.A. Nos. 7579
and 8249 did not expressly repeal Section 11 of P.D. No. 1606.
D.
Section 11 of
P.D. No. 1606 covers even civil cases in light of its forthright and
unambiguous terms.
E.
There is no
glaring inconsistency or repugnancy between Section 11 of P.D. No. 1606 and Section
4 of R.A. No. 7975 for the latter to be deemed to have impliedly repealed the
former.
F.
Even in the
absence of any constitutional proscription, it is not Section 7 in particular
of Rule 141 as to the legal fees payable to Regional Trial Courts which will
apply to all cases or proceedings, civil or criminal, before the Sandiganbayan,
but Sections 4 and 5 thereof as to the legal fees payable to the Court of
Appeals as the latter and the Sandiganbayan are “of the same level.”
G.
No less than the
Honorable Court and recent legislation recognize that both the Court of Appeals
and the Sandiganbayan are “of the same level.”
As can be culled from the
aforementioned assignment of errors, the main issue submitted to this Court for
resolution is whether the Sandiganbayan erred in dismissing petitioners’
complaint for failure to pay the correct filing fees.
The
petition is unmeritorious.
In the
2000 case of Yuchengco v. Republic
of the Philippines, et al.,[17] wherein
petitioner Yuchengco assailed the Sandiganbayan resolution dismissing his
amended complaint-in-intervention for failure to pay the proper docket fee on
time, this Court stressed the rule that parties filing civil actions before the Sandiganbayan are liable to pay
the required docket fees. We ruled:
… petitioner’s position that subsequent amendments to PD 1606 did not expressly repeal Section 11 thereof is untenable. Petitioner failed to appreciate that the expansion of the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction to include civil cases impliedly amended the same and Section 1, Rule IV, Part I of the Revised Rules of the Sandiganbayan. Moreover, the Supreme Court enjoys exclusive power to promulgate the rules on pleading, practice, and procedure.
In addition, Republic Act No. 7975 amended Section 9 of P.D. 1606 to read as follows:
Rules of Procedure. — The Rules of Court promulgated by the Supreme Court shall apply to all cases and proceedings filed with the Sandiganbayan. . . .
Hence, Rule 141 Section 7(a) of the Rules of Court applies to petitioner’s complaint and/or amended complaints-in-intervention.
When P.D. No. 1606 and Section 11
thereof, which provides that all proceedings in the Sandiganbayan shall be
conducted at no cost to the complainant, were issued on
We also
reject petitioners’ contention that Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 141 of the Revised
Rules of Court on the legal fees payable to the Court of Appeals should apply
to the Sandiganbayan, because they are of the same level. Although it could be argued that the
Sandiganbayan is of the same level as the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan
performs the functions of a trial court and its limited and exclusive appellate
jurisdiction covers only appeals from the final judgments, resolutions or
orders of regional trial courts where all the accused are occupying positions
lower than salary grade 27 or not otherwise covered by the enumeration of
certain public officers in Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606 as amended by R.A. No.
8249. Since the cognizance of the
present case by the Sandiganbayan is in the exercise of its function as a trial
court and not of its appellate function, it is Section 7 of Rule 141 that
should apply as to the legal fees to be paid.
There is
another reason why the petition must fail.
In the case of Sun Insurance
Office Ltd. v. Hon. Maximiano Asuncion,[18] the
Court en banc laid down the following
rules as regards the payment of filing fees:
1. It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading, but [also] the payment of the prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject-matter or nature of the action. Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by payment of the docket fee, the court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.
2. The same rule applies to permissive
counterclaims, third-party claims and similar pleadings, which shall not be
considered filed until and unless the filing fee prescribed therefor is paid. The court may also allow payment of said fee
within a reasonable time but also in no case beyond its applicable prescriptive
or reglementary period.
3. Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over a claim by the filing of the appropriate pleading and payment of the prescribed filing fee but, subsequently, the judgment awards a claim not specified in the pleading, or if specified the same has been left for determination by the court, the additional filing fee therefor shall constitute a lien on the judgment. It shall be the responsibility of the Clerk of Court or his duly authorized deputy to enforce said lien and assess and collect the additional fee.
The rule is clear. It is not simply the filing of the complaint
or appropriate initiatory pleading, but also the payment of the prescribed
docket fee, that vests the trial court with jurisdiction over the subject
matter or nature of the action.[19]
Payment within “a reasonable time”
of the prescribed filing fees may be granted by the courts upon equitable
considerations but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or
reglementary period. Since the
petitioners in the case at bar seek to recover shares of stock, the ownership
and possession of which they have been allegedly wrongfully deprived, assuming
hypothetically this averment to be true, the legal relationship of constructive
trust was present among the parties concerned.
A
constructive trust, otherwise known as an implied trust, is a trust by
operation of law which arises contrary to intention and in invitum, against one who, by fraud, actual or constructive, by
duress or abuse of confidence, by commission of wrong, or by any form of
unconscionable conduct, artifice, concealment, or questionable means, or who in
any way against equity and good conscience, either has obtained or holds the
legal right to property which he ought not, in equity and good conscience, hold
and enjoy.[20] It is a resulting obligation created by law
and actions thereon prescribe after ten (10) years as provided by Article 1144
of the Civil Code.[21]
In the
instant case, even if we consider the petitioners’ right of action for recovery
of the shares as having accrued only on November 3, 1990, when Benedicto
entered into a compromise agreement with the Republic of the Philippines
surrendering the shares in question, or even on the latter period of September
10, 1993, wherein this Court upheld the validity of the compromise agreement,
the ten (10)-year prescriptive period has already elapsed. The petitioners,
through their belated filing of numerous motions of extensions to file their
reply instead of manifesting a willingness to abide by the ruling of the
Sandiganbayan on the proper docket fees to be paid, have clearly slept on their
rights. Prescription has already set in,
thereby barring their right of action.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Resolution dated
SO ORDERED.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Associate
Justice
WE
CONCUR:
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
I attest that
the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate Justice
Chairman
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairman’s
Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision
were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
ARTEMIO
V. PANGANIBAN
[1] Annex “A,” rollo, pp. 33-38; penned by Justice Sabino R. de Leon, Jr.,
concurred in by Justices Narciso Nario and Rodolfo G. Palattao.
[2] Annex “C,” rollo, pp. 40-47.
[3] Executive Order No. 1, Section 2(a).
[4] Annex “D,” rollo, pp. 48-51.
[5] Section 7 of Rule 141 of the Revised
Rules of Court on filing fees, as amended by Adm. Cir. No. 11-94 which took effect on
SECTION 7.
Clerks of Regional Trial Courts. –
(a) For
filing an action or a permissive counterclaim or money claim against an estate
not based on judgment, or for filing with leave of court a third-party,
fourth-party, etc. complaint, or a complaint in intervention, and for all
clerical services in the same, if the total sum claimed, inclusive of interest,
damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs, or
the stated value of the property in litigation, is:
1. Not
more than P100,000.00 P400.00
2. P100,000.00 or more but not more
than P150,000.00 P600.00
3. For each P1,000.00, in excess of
P150,000.00 P 5.00
xxx xxx xxx
[6] Section
4 of Republic Act No. 7975, entitled “An Act To Strengthen the Functional and
Structural Organization of the Sandiganbayan, Amending For That Purpose
Presidential Decree No. 1606, As Amended,” enacted on March 30, 1995, provides:
SECTION 4. Section
9 of the same Decree is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 9. Rules of
Procedure. — The Rules of Court promulgated by the Supreme Court shall apply to
all cases and proceedings filed with the Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan shall have no power to
promulgate its own rules of procedure, except to adopt internal rules governing
the allotment of cases among the divisions, the rotation of justices among
them, and other matters relating to the internal operations of the court which
shall be enforced until repealed or modified by the Supreme Court.
[7] No. L-75919,
[8] Annex “E,” rollo, p. 53.
[9] Annex “F,” rollo, pp. 55-72.
[10] Section 11 of Presidential Decree No.
1606 provides:
SECTION 11. Proceedings Free of Charge. — All proceedings in the Sandiganbayan
shall be conducted at no cost to the
complainant and/or his witnesses.
[11] Entitled
“An Act Further Defining the Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, Amending for
the Purpose Presidential Decree No.
1606, as Amended, Providing Funds Therefore, and for Other Purposes,” enacted
on
[12] Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 141 of the
Revised Rules of Court, provide:
SECTION 4.
Clerks of the Court of Appeals and of the Supreme Court.—
(a)
For filing an
action, proceeding, appeal by notice or record on appeal when required,
entering appearance of the parties, entering orders of the court, filing and
docketing all motions, docketing of case on all proper dockets, and indexing
the same, entering, recording and certification of judgment and remanding of
records to the lower court, taxing and costs, administering all necessary oaths
or affirmations in the action or proceeding, recording the opinion of the
court, and issuing all necessary process in the action or proceeding not herein
otherwise provided for, each action or special proceeding, four hundred (P400.00)
pesos;
xxx xxx xxx
SECTION 5. Fees to be paid by the advancing party.—
The fees of the clerk of the Court of Appeals or of
the Supreme Court shall be paid him at the time of the entry of the action or
proceeding in the court by the party who enters the same by appeal, or
otherwise, and the clerk shall in all cases give a receipt for the same and
shall enter the amount received upon his book, specifying the date when
received, person from whom received, name of action in which received, and
amount received. If the fees are not
paid, the court may refuse to proceed with the action until they are paid and
may dismiss the appeal or action or proceeding.
[13] Annex “A,” op.
cit., note 1.
[14] Annex “G,” rollo, pp. 73-84.
[15] Annex “H,” rollo, pp. 85-91.
[16] Annex “B,” rollo, p. 39.
[17] G.R.
No. 131127,
[18] G.R. Nos.
79937-38,
[19] Lazaro
v. Eudencia, et al., 57 Phil. 552 (1932); Lee v. Republic, No.
L-15027,
[20] 76 Am
Jur 2d 446.
[21] Article
1144 of the Civil Code of the
Art. 1144. The following actions must be brought
within ten years from the time the right of action accrues:
(1)
Upon a written
contract;
(2) Upon
an obligation created by law;
(3) Upon
a judgment.