ROSALINDA A. VILLAMAYOR, MARLON A. VILLAMAYOR, JACKSON A. VILLAMAYOR AND PEDERSON A. VILLAMAYOR, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. NARMO P. NOBLEJAS, AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF RTC-BRANCH 69, BI…
BARZA, J.:
for certiorari filed by Rosalinda Villamayor, Marlon Villamayor, Jackson
Villamayor and Pederson Villamayor seeking to annul and set aside the
Order[1] dated August 31, 2012
of Branch 69 of the Regional Trial Court of Binangonan, Rizal, granting
additional period of 30 days for respondents Rosa Villamayor-Mosqueda,
Carmelita Villamayor-Calingo, Perfecto Villamayor and Ma. Nancy
Villamayor-Picones, to pay the deficiency filing fee.
Petitioners are the defendants before the court a quo in a case for Partition, Reconveyance and Damages docketed as SCA No. 11-008.
The factual antecedents as culled from the record:
Respondents filed before the court a quo a case for Partition, Reconveyance and Damages docketed as SCA No. 11-008, against petitioners.
For failure of petitioners to file their answer to the complaint, an order of default was issued by the court a quo
on December 7, 2011. Petitioners elevated the order of default to the
Eight Division of this Court under docket no. CA-G.R. No. 124737 via a
petition for certiorari.
Petitioners thereafter learned upon verification from the
Office of the Clerk of Court of Binangonan, Rizal, that when respondents
filed the case in SCA No. 11-008, they were not able to pay in full
the filing fee and docket fee which was assessed to be in the amount of
P406,827.57. Out of this amount, only P61,148.00 was paid, leaving the
deficiency in the amount of P325,462.50.
On March 30, 2012,[2] petitioners filed before the court a quo a Manifestation relative to the insufficient docket fees paid by respondents. On April 2, 2012,[3] the court a quo issued an Order directing respondents to pay the balance of P325,462.50 for the filing fee.
For failure of respondents to pay the aforesaid balance, the court a quo issued an Order dated May 10, 2012,[4] dismissing the case pursuant to Section 3, Rule 17[5] in relation to Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration of the order dated May 10, 2012. In the Order of the court a quo
dated June 15, 2012, it set aside the order of dismissal giving
respondents final additional period within which to pay the deficiency
in the filing fee.
On July 9, 2012, respondents filed an Ex-Parte Motion or Clarification and for Additional Time[6]
praying that a re-computation be made on the filing fee and that they
be given additional period of thirty (30) days to pay the deficiency in
the filing fee.
In the Order dated July 18, 2012, the court a quo reduced
the amount of the deficiency in the filing fee from P325,462.50 to
P264,314.05, giving respondents additional period of thirty days or
until August 18, 2012 to pay the said amount. Petitioners assailed the
Order dated July 18, 2012 to the Court of Appeals by way of a petition
for certiorari, docketed under CA-G.R. SP No. 126139.
On August 3, 2012, petitioners filed a Manifestation[7] asking the court a quo to make the August 18, 2012 as the final deadline for the respondents to pay the deficiency filing fee.
On August 22, 2012, respondents filed a Manifestation with Motion[8] stating that in partial compliance to the order of the court a quo,
they paid the amount of P50,314.05 to the Office of the Clerk of Court.
They further stated that the money which they expected to receive from
a relative who committed to help in paying the deficiency filing fee
has not yet arrived. Respondents then asked for another additional
thirty days from August 22, 2012 to pay the remaining deficiency filing
fee of P214,000.00.
On August 23, 2012, petitioners filed a Manifestation[9]
expressing their strong opposition to the extension being prayed for by
respondents. Petitioners alleged that the total deficiency in the
amount of P214,000.00 can easily be raised by all the respondents if
they would only contribute their respective shares thereto. Apparently,
it is only Rosa Villamayor-Mosqueda who is interested in pursuing the
case and her siblings (the other respondents) are merely included to add
pressure if not to publicly humiliate petitioners. Petitioners further
alleged that the partial payment of P50,314.05 should not be considered
compliance to the Order dated July 18, 2012. Petitioners contended
that the Office of the Clerk of Court should not have accepted the
partial payment without the prior order of the court a quo
allowing partial payment because the July 18, 2012 Order required that
respondents must make a full payment. According to petitioners, the
authority of the Office of the Clerk of Court to receive payment is
limited to what has been directed by the court a quo pursuant to its Order.
On August 31, 2012, the court a quo issued the assailed order which contains, to wit:
Before this Court is a Manifestation with Motion, dated August
22, 2012, filed by the plaintiffs through counsel manifesting that they
already paid P50,314.00 as partial payment of docket fee and prayed that
they be given another extension of thirty (30) days or up to September
21, 2012 to pay the remaining deficiency filing fee of Php 214,000.00.On August 23, 2012, this Court received a copy of the petition
filed by the defendants docketed as CA-G.R. No. 126139 assailing the
Orders of this Court dated June 15, 2012 and July 18, 2012.Considering the amount of the filing fee, it would be in the
interest of substantial justice to allow the plaintiffs an unextendible
period of thirty (30) days to pay the balance of the filing fee in the
amount of Php 214,000.00 but subject to the outcome of the said
petition.WHEREFORE, the Manifestation with Motion, dated August 22, 2012,
filed by the plaintiffs through counsel is GRANTED, subject to the
outcome of the said petition filed by defendants with the Court of
Appeals.Accordingly, the plaintiffs are given additional unextendible
period of thirty (30) days from August 22, 2012 or up to September 21,
2012 within which to pay the remaining deficiency filing fee of
P214,000.00.[10]
Hence, this petition.
Petitioners raised that:
The lower court committed grave abuse of discretion, amounting
to having acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction when it took
cognizance and gave due course to the Manifestation with Motion of
herein private respondents dated August 22, 2012, without good and
justifiable reasons.[11]
Petitioners reiterate their arguments before the court a quo and herein aver that although the Manifestation with Motion was set for hearing, respondents did not present evidence to support their claim that “the
money which the plaintiffs expected to receive from relatives committed
to help in paying the deficiency filing fee has not yet arrived”,
to warrant and justify the grant of an extension. Petitioners further
aver that respondents should have disclosed in their Complaint the true
and real value of the property subject of the case before the court a quo.
According to petitioners, respondents maliciously and in utter bad
faith concealed the true value of the properties by deliberately not
attaching in their Complaint the tax declarations.
Petitioners also impute partiality to the court a quo
when it denied their Motion for Reconsideration to the denial of the
Motion to Lift Order of Default and to Admit Answer. Petitioners argue
that despite good and justifiable reasons, the lower court did not give
merit to their invocation of substantial justice.
There is no merit in the petition.
We cannot ascribe grave abuse of discretion to the court a quo
when it issued the Order dated August 31, 2012, granting respondents
another extension of thirty (30) days to pay the remaining deficiency
filing fee of P214,000.00.
As a rule, docket fees should be paid upon the filing of the
initiatory pleadings. However, for cogent reasons to be determined by
the trial judge, staggered payment thereof within a reasonable period
may be allowed. Unless grave abuse of discretion is demonstrated, the
discretion of the trial judge in granting staggered payment shall not be
disturbed.[12]
It is well-settled that a petition for certiorari against a
court which has jurisdiction over a case will prosper only if grave
abuse of discretion is manifested. The burden is on the part of the
petitioner to prove not merely reversible error, but grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of
the public respondent issuing the impugned order. Mere abuse of
discretion is not enough; it must be grave. The term grave abuse of
discretion is defined as a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment
so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a
virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, as where the power is
exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner because of passion or
hostility.[13]
Petitioners offer no sufficient support for its allegation that the court a quo committed grave abuse of discretion. The petition contains no explanation of how the court a quo
exercised its judgment capriciously or whimsically or in an arbitrary
or despotic manner. Other than the assertion that the court a quo
was lenient to respondents and allegedly partial to petitioners, there
is no discussion of the acts and circumstances that would aptly
characterized as grave abuse of discretion.
It is apparent too that respondents are willing to pay the filing fee. In fact, to comply with the order of the court a quo
dated July 18, 2012, respondents made a partial payment in the amount
of P50,314.05 from the total deficiency of P214,000.00. Undoubtedly,
respondents were able to show their willingness to pay but considering
the amount of filing fee which they have to raise, they needed to ask
for an extension from the court a quo to come up with the required
filing fee.
Plainly, while the payment of the prescribed docket fee is a
jurisdictional requirement, even its nonpayment 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. [14]
It has been the constant ruling of this Court that every
party-litigant should be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper
and just disposition of his cause, free from constraints of
technicalities. Rules of procedure are mere tools designed to expedite
the resolution of cases and other matters pending in court. A strict and
rigid application of the rules that would result in technicalities that
tend to frustrate rather than promote justice must be avoided.[15] Considering that what the subject of litigation before the court a quo
is a property, the parties should be given the opportunity to have an
adjudication on the merits after they have completed the payment of the
filing fee as required by the court a quo.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED DUE COURSE and DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Abdulwahid (Chairperson) and Cruz, JJ., concur.
[1] p. 96, rollo.
[2] p. 6, rollo.
[3] p. 40, rollo.
[4] id.
[5] Sec. 3. Dismissal due to the fault of plaintiff. – If, for no justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to appear on
the date of the presentation of his evidence in chief on the complaint, or to prosecute his action for
unreasonable length of time, or to comply with these Rules or any order of the court, the complaint may
be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the court’s own motion, without prejudice to the
right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same or in separate action. This dismissal
shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise declared by the court.
[6] p. 42, rollo.
[7] pp. 40-41, rollo.
[8] pp. 45-47, rollo.
[9] pp. 50-52, rollo.
[10] p. 96, rollo.
[11] p. 14, rollo.
[12] Gregorio Go vs. Johnson Tong, et al., G.R. No. 151942, November 27, 2003.
[13] Ceferina Lopez Tan vs. Sps. Apolinar Antazo, G.R. No. 1872078, February 23, 2011.
[14] Supra at note 12.
[15] Del Monte Philippines, Inc. Employers Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries vs. Jesus Sangunay, G.R. No.
180013, January 31, 2011.