G.R. No. 85847 , December 21, 1989
Spouses Belen Gregorio, petitioners, vs. The Honorable Judge Zosimo Z. Angeles, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Makati, Branch 58, Spouses Sylvia and Ramon Carrion, and The Office of the Sheriff of Makati, respondents.

FACTS

The petitioners filed a complaint for a sum of money against the private respondents arising from a loan. The initial complaint was dismissed due to the petitioners’ failure to appear at pre-trial and file a pre-trial brief. Subsequently, the petitioners filed a second complaint, which was essentially identical to the first. The prayer in both complaints sought the payment of a specified principal amount, attorney’s fees, interest, litigation expenses, and exemplary damages “subject to the discretion of the Honorable Court,” without stating a specific sum for the exemplary damages.
The private respondents moved to dismiss the second complaint, arguing that the failure to specify the amount of exemplary damages sought violated the ruling in Manchester Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court’s Administrative Circular No. 7, which requires the specification of damages in the complaint to determine the correct docket fees. The Regional Trial Court granted the motion and dismissed the case for non-compliance with the circular.

ISSUE

Whether the failure of the complaint to specify the exact amount of exemplary damages sought warrants its dismissal under the principles established in Manchester Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal was erroneous and granted the petition. The legal logic is anchored on a proper application of the Manchester doctrine and the nature of exemplary damages. The Court clarified that Manchester primarily condemns the deliberate failure to specify damages to evade payment of correct docket fees, which constitutes fraud upon the court. Here, the complaint specified precise amounts for the principal debt, attorney’s fees, interest, and litigation expenses. These specified sums were sufficient for the clerk of court to compute and assess the requisite docket fees based on the actual damages claimed.
The failure to state a specific sum for exemplary damages was not fatal. Exemplary damages, by their nature under Article 2233 of the Civil Code, cannot be recovered as a matter of right; their adjudication and amount are left to the sound discretion of the court based on the evidence presented during trial. The complaint’s prayer for exemplary damages “subject to the discretion of the Honorable Court” was therefore appropriate. The Court distinguished this case from one purely seeking moral, nominal, temperate, or exemplary damages alone, where specification is necessary for fee calculation. This action was essentially for specific performance on a loan with determinable actual damages, and the unspecified exemplary demand was ancillary. Since there was no showing of an intent to defraud the government on docket fees, the Manchester ruling did not justify dismissal. The case was remanded for further proceedings.