HONESTO GENERAL, PETITIONER, VS. HON. GRADUACION REYES CLARA­VALL, JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT AT PASIG, BR. 71, BENNETH THELMO AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

Honesto General versus Judge Graduacion Reyes Claravall

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari filed with the Supreme Court by Honesto General, one of two accused in a libel case, against Judge Graduacion Reyes Claravall of the Regional Trial Court at Pasig, Branch 71, against the private complainant Benneth Thelmo, and against the People of the Philippines. General asks the Court to annul two orders of the trial court that allowed the private complainant to pursue a claim for damages arising from the libel without first paying the corresponding filing fees. The case matters because it fixes, for the guidance of all concerned, exactly when the filing fees for a civil action impliedly instituted with a criminal action must be paid, and when they may simply wait as a lien on the judgment. It is the case that reconciles the strict Manchester doctrine with the gentler Sun Insurance and Tacay rulings, and it does so by reading the amended text of the Rules of Court.

Procedural History

Benneth Thelmo filed a sworn complaint with the Office of the Public Prosecutor of Rizal, accusing Honesto General and another person of libel and claiming actual, moral, and exemplary damages in the total sum of 100 million pesos. After preliminary investigation, an information for libel was filed with the Regional Trial Court at Pasig, but that information contained no allegation respecting the damages due the offended party. At the trial, the defense raised the non-payment of the docket fees corresponding to the claim of damages as a bar to the private complainant's pursuit of his civil action. The trial court overruled the objection by order dated March 28, 1990, and it also denied the defendants' motion for reconsideration and motion for suspension of proceedings by another order dated May 17, 1990. General and his co-accused then went directly to the Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari, arguing that the two orders had been rendered with grave abuse of discretion.

Facts

The private complainant, Benneth Thelmo, went to the Office of the Public Prosecutor of Rizal and swore to a complaint charging Honesto General and another person with libel. In that sworn complaint he alleged that by reason of the offense he had suffered actual, moral, and exemplary damages in the total sum of 100 million pesos. After preliminary investigation, the information for libel was filed with the Regional Trial Court at Pasig. That information, however, did not contain any allegation respecting the damages due the offended party.

When the case went to trial, the defense raised the non-payment of the docket fees corresponding to the claim of damages contained in the sworn complaint before the fiscal, and argued that this non-payment barred the private complainant from pursuing his civil action. The trial court overruled the objection by order dated March 28, 1990. It likewise denied the defendants' motion for reconsideration and their motion for suspension of proceedings by order dated May 17, 1990.

General and his co-accused then came to the Supreme Court on certiorari, invoking three earlier decisions, namely Manchester versus the Court of Appeals, Sun Insurance Office, Limited versus Asuncion, and Tacay versus the Regional Trial Court, and asking whether the rule should now be that the filing fees for the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense must first be paid before that civil action may be deemed impliedly instituted with the criminal case and prosecuted in due course.

Issues

• Whether or not the filing fees for the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense must first be paid before that civil action may be deemed impliedly instituted with the criminal action and prosecuted in due course.
• Whether or not the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in overruling the objection based on non-payment of docket fees and in denying the motion for reconsideration and the motion for suspension of proceedings.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, as amended in 1985, provides:

SECTION 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. -- When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged is impliedly instituted with the criminal action, unless the offended party expressly waives the civil action or reserves his right to institute it separately. However, after the criminal action has been commenced, the civil action cannot be instituted until final judgment has been rendered in the criminal action. When the offended party seeks to enforce civil liability against the accused by way of actual, moral, nominal, temperate or exemplary damages, the filing fees for such civil action as provided in these Rules shall first be paid to the Clerk of Court of the court where the criminal case is filed. In all other cases, the filing fees corresponding to the civil liability awarded by the court shall constitute a first lien on the judgment award and no payment by execution or otherwise may be made to the offended party without his first paying the amount of such filing fees to the Clerk of Court.

This is the older version, which required payment of the filing fees first, without regard to whether the claim for damages was set out in the information or not.

Section 1 of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, as further amended and effective as of October 1, 1988, provides:

SECTION 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. -- When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability is impliedly instituted with the criminal action, unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves his right to institute it separately, or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action. Such civil action includes recovery of indemnity under the Revised Penal Code, and damages under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines arising from the same act or omission of the accused. A waiver of any of the civil actions extinguishes the others. The institution of, or the reservation of the right to file, any of said civil actions separately waives the others. The reservation of the right to institute the separate civil actions shall be made before the prosecution starts to present its evidence and under circumstances affording the offended party a reasonable opportunity to make such reservation. In no case may the offended party recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the accused. When the offended party seeks to enforce civil liability against the accused by way of moral, nominal, temperate or exemplary damages, the filing fees for such civil action as provided in these Rules shall constitute a first lien on the judgment except in an award for actual damages. In cases wherein the amount of damages, other than actual, is alleged in the complaint or information, the corresponding filing fees shall be paid by the offended party upon the filing thereof in court for trial.

This is the governing version, and its last two paragraphs prescribe a rule different from Manchester and from the 1985 Rules, tying the duty to pay filing fees to whether the amount of damages other than actual is alleged in the complaint or information.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the filing fees need not always be paid first. The Court observed that the 1988 amendments were deliberated on and adopted after the Manchester doctrine had been enunciated, and yet the last two paragraphs of the amended Section 1 prescribe a different rule. Under the 1985 Rules, the filing fees had to be paid first to the Clerk of Court where the criminal action was commenced, without regard to whether the claim for damages was set out in the information or not. Under the 1988 Rules, it is only when the amount of damages, other than actual, is alleged in the complaint or information that the corresponding filing fees shall be paid by the offended party upon the filing thereof in court for trial. In any other case, the filing fees merely constitute a first lien on the judgment, except in an award for actual damages.

The Court made its intent plainer and categorically declared, for the guidance of all concerned, that when a civil action is deemed impliedly instituted with the criminal action under Section 1 of Rule 111, the rule is as follows:

1) when the amount of damages, other than actual, is alleged in the complaint or information filed in court, then the corresponding filing fees shall be paid by the offended party upon the filing thereof in court for trial; 2) in any other case, however -- i.e., when the amount of damages is not so alleged in the complaint or information filed in court, the corresponding filing fees need not be paid and shall simply constitute a first lien on the judgment, except in an award for actual damages.

On the second issue, the Court held that there was no error in the challenged orders of the trial court, which appeared on the contrary to be in accord with the law and the facts. Since the information for libel filed in court contained no allegation of the amount of damages, the filing fees need not be paid in advance, and the trial court correctly overruled the objection and denied the motions.

Doctrine

When a civil action is impliedly instituted with a criminal action under Section 1 of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, because the offended party has not waived the civil action, has not reserved the right to institute it separately, and has not instituted it prior to the criminal action, the payment of filing fees depends on the text of the complaint or information. If the amount of damages other than actual is alleged in the complaint or information filed in court, the corresponding filing fees shall be paid by the offended party upon the filing thereof in court for trial. If the amount of damages is not so alleged, the filing fees need not be paid and shall simply constitute a first lien on the judgment, except in an award for actual damages. The Manchester doctrine, requiring payment of filing fees at the commencement of the action, applies to impliedly instituted civil actions only when the amount of damages other than actual is alleged in the complaint or information.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed, with costs against the petitioner, because the challenged orders of the trial court were in accord with the law and the facts.

Remember This

Memorize the rule: no amount of damages other than actual alleged in the complaint or information means no advance filing fees, only a first lien on the judgment. Examiners use this case to test whether you know that the 1988 amendment to Section 1 of Rule 111 relaxed the Manchester doctrine for impliedly instituted civil actions.