MAERSK-TABACALERA SHIPPING AGENCY (FILIPINAS), INC., PETITIONER, VS. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, MONET’S EXPORT AND MANUFAC­TURING CORPORATION AND/OR VICENTE TAGLE, RESPONDENTS.

This is petition for review on certiorari of the decision
dated July 12, 1989 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 18124 affirming
that of the Regional Trial Court of Legaspi City in
Civil Case No. 7480 which awarded damages to the plaintiff, now private
respondent, Monet’s Export and Manufacturing (Monet for short) against the
petitioner Maersk-Tabacalera Shipping Agency
(Filipinas), Inc., (Maersk for short) for breach of a
contract of carriage.

The facts are stated in the decision of the Court of Appeals as
follows:

“On May 21, 1985, a complaint for damages was filed by
plaintiff Monet’s Export and Manufacturing Corporation (Monet’s) and/or Vicente
Tagle against defendants Maersk
Tabacalera Shipping (Maersk)
and the New Asia Enterprises (New Asia) and/or Manuel Ranola,
alleging, among other things, that plaintiff, like defendant New Asia, is
engaged in the export of locally-made handicrafts and products, while defendant
Maersk Line is engaged in furnishing containerized
services through which Monet’s and New Asia normally ship their goods; that on
March 11, 1984, plaintiff, after complying with all the export and custom
requirements, loaded its goods in Maersk’s container
to be delivered on or before March 15, 1984 to Manila for immediate transshipment
to its port of destination; that through fraud and malice, and without prior
notice to Monet’s, Maersk unloaded the goods at New
Asia’s factory site at Tagas, Daraga,
Albay to give way to the latter’s own export
shipment; that Monet’s shipment was later returned to its warehouse at Banag, Daraga, Albay; and that because of this occurrence, Monet’s had to
secure another shipper, thereby incurring unnecessary expenses as well as
suffering mental anguish, worry and sleepless nights thinking of the possibility
of losing its trading partners which would seriously doubt Monet’s capacity as
a respectable exporter.  Monet’s likewise
alleged having suffered actual, moral and exemplary damages (p. 1, Record).

“Answering the complaint, Maersk
contended that contrary to Monet’s allegations, the latter’s shipment was
loaded on March 10, 1984 in Maersk container subject
to the condition that the bill of lading would be issued upon Monet’s
compliance with all the necessary export papers prior to the departure of the
truck bearing said container for Manila on March 11, 1984.  Maersk further
alleged that Monet’s knew that the subject goods would not be brought to Manila
without submitting all the necessary export papers, as without them, Maersk would incur charges on the cargo when deposited at
the customs warehouse in Manila and
would subsequently be not allowed to export the goods by custom authorities (p.
16, Record).

“Defendant New Asia, for its part, denied any liability in
favor of Monet’s, alleging that Monet’s has no cause of action against it not
being a party to the contract of carriage between Monet and Maersk
(p. 24, Record).

“Defendants during the hearing of February 17, 1986 were considered as in default
for their failure to attend the scheduled pre-trial conference despite proper
notice.  Subsequently, the order of
default in regard to defendant Maersk was lifted and
the latter was allowed to cross-examine all the witnesses of Monet’s.  Defendant New Asia did not move for the
lifting of the order of default and accordingly remained as in default.” (p. 204, Record.)

On March 28, 1988,
the appealed judgment was rendered:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, defendant Maersk
Shipping Line is found to be liable to plaintiff for damages in the following
amounts:  For breach of contract of
carriage, P50,000.00; for moral damages brought about
by the wanton bad faith employed by defendant shipping line in the performance
of its contractual obligation, P50,000.00; and as exemplary damages, another
P50,000.00 and for attorney’s fees, P20,000.00.

“Defendant New Asia Enterprises is exonerated of any
liability, there being no valid cause of action by plaintiff against it.  New Asia Enterprises cannot be made
answerable for whatever action or violation of contracted obligation defendant Maersk Line may have committed against plaintiff because
they are 2 separate corporations and there is no proof of any collusion between
them.” (pp. 27-28, Rollo.)

Maersk appealed to the Court of Appeals
which affirmed the judgment of the trial court on July 12, 1989.

Hence, the instant petition wherein Maersk
raises the following issues:

1.  Respondent court erred in
affirming the judgment of the trial court despite the obvious fact that the
trial court never acquired jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the action
because private respondents did not specify their claims for damages and the
correct filing fees were not paid.

2. It was error for respondent court to have awarded P50,000.00 for “breach of contract” because this is
not a form of damage and petitioner has a right to know for what it is being
made to pay.

3. Respondent court erred also in awarding moral damages to a
corporation that was not shown to have a good reputation that was damaged.

4.  Again, respondent court
erred in awarding exemplary damages in the absence of evidence that petitioner
acted in a wanton or malevolent manner.

5.  Finally, respondent court
erred in awarding attorney’s fees without any explanation for such an
award.  (pp. 13-14, Rollo.)

Petitioner’s allegation that the decisions of the trial court and
the Court of Appeals were void for lack of jurisdiction (p. 75, Rollo) as Monet did not pay the correct filing fee on its
claims for actual, moral and exemplary damages, the amounts
of which were not specified in the body and prayer of its complaint, is
anchored in the following ruling of this Court in Manchester Development
Corporation vs. CA (149 SCRA 562 [1987]) —

“x x x the
trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the case by the payment of only
P410.00 as docket fee.  x x x

“To put a stop to this irregularity, henceforth all
complaints, petitions, answers and other similar pleadings should specify
the amount of damages being prayed for
not only in the body of the pleading
but also in the prayer, and said
damages shall be considered in the assessment
of the filing fees in any case.  Any pleading that fails
to comply with the requirement shall not
be accepted nor admitted, or shall otherwise
be expunged from the record.

“The Court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the
payment of the prescribed docket fee.  An
amendment of the complaint or similar pleading will not thereby vest
jurisdiction in the court, much less the payment of the docket fee based on the
amounts sought in the amended pleading.” (Underscoring
supplied; pp. 568-569.)

Unlike Manchester,
however, where the jurisdictional issue arising from insufficiency of the
docket fee paid, was seasonably raised in the answer of the defendant in the
trial court, in this case the issue is being raised for the first time in this
Court.  Petitioner submitted to the
jurisdiction of the trial court without question.  It filed a counterclaim seeking affirmative reliefs, and actively took part in the trial (p. 53, Rollo).  A party who
voluntarily participates in the trial cannot later on raise the issue of the
court’s lack of jurisdiction (Tan Boon Bee & Co. v. Judge Jarencio, 163 SCRA 205).

Maersk should have raised its objection
to the trial court’s jurisdiction when the case was still in that court.  It should not have waited for an adverse
decision by the Court of Appeals before waking up to raise the question of
jurisdiction.  As this Court remarked in Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA 29,
37:  “Were we to sanction such conduct
on its part, We would in effect be declaring as useless all the proceedings had
in the present case since it was commenced x x x and compel the judgment creditors to go up their Calvary
once more.  The inequity and unfairness
of this is not only patent but revolting.” “A party may be barred by laches from invoking his plea (of lack of jurisdiction) for
the first time on appeal for the purpose of annulling everything done in the
case with the active participation of said party invoking the plea.” (Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA
29, 34.)

Since this is a case where some of the claims (for moral and
exemplary damages) were not specified in the plaintiff’s pleading and were left
for determination by the court, the applicable rule is the third rule set out
in the decision of this Court in Sun Insurance Office Ltd., et al. vs. Hon. Maximiano Asuncion, et al., 170 SCRA 274, to wit:

“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 Clerk of Court of the trial court shall assess and collect
the proper additional fees on the totality of the judgment for the private
respondent (Id.)

Monet’s counsel in the trial court, Attorney Jesus Salazar, is
hereby reprimanded for his unethical practice of not specifying the amount of
damages sought in the body and prayer of his complaint in order to defraud the
Government of the proper fee for docketing said complaint.  He is warned that a repetition of that
malpractice will be dealt with more severely.

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is denied
for lack of merit.  However, the Clerk of
Court of the trial court shall assess and collect the fees due on the judgment
as if the same amounts were specified in the complaint.  Costs against the
petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Gancayco, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.