G.R. No. A.M. No. 88-1-646-0 March 3, 1988
RE: REQUEST OF THE PLAINTIFFS, HEIRS OF THE PASSENGERS OF THE DOÑA PAZ TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED JANUARY 4, 1988 OF JUDGE B.D. CHINGCUANGCO

FACTS

The heirs of victims of the Doña Paz maritime disaster filed a complaint for damages exceeding one and a half billion pesos, characterizing it as a “class suit” prosecuted by 27 named plaintiffs on behalf of approximately 4,000 relatives of the deceased passengers. Concurrently, they filed a “Motion for Leave to File Case as Pauper Litigant,” alleging poverty and inability to pay the substantial filing fees, which they claimed were assessed at over six million pesos. They submitted a certification from the Quezon City Assessor showing that seven of the named plaintiffs had no property registered for taxation.
Executive Judge B.D. Chingcuangco issued an order on January 4, 1988, granting pauper status only to those seven specifically certified indigent plaintiffs, but not extending this status to the case as a whole for all claimants. The plaintiffs, through counsel, requested the Supreme Court to set aside this order, seeking a declaration that all plaintiffs be allowed to litigate as paupers and that the case be recognized as a proper class suit, thereby exempting them from the payment of filing fees.

ISSUE

Whether the complaint was properly filed as a class suit under Section 12, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, and whether all plaintiffs should be permitted to litigate as pauper litigants.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the request. The Court clarified that the action was not a proper class suit but a case of permissive joinder of parties under Section 6, Rule 3. A legitimate class suit requires the subject matter to be of common or general interest to many persons who are so numerous that bringing them all to court is impracticable. The Court emphasized that the claims arising from the maritime disaster, while stemming from a common event, were individual and separate in nature. Each claimant’s right to recover damages depended on particularized facts such as their specific relationship to a victim, the extent of their loss, and applicable defenses, which would require separate adjudication. Therefore, the community of interest necessary for a class suit was absent.
Consequently, the suit could not be prosecuted as a pauper litigation for all purported claimants. The grant of pauper status, which excuses the payment of docket fees, is a privilege personal to an indigent litigant. It must be substantiated by competent evidence for each party seeking the benefit. The Executive Judge correctly limited the grant of pauper status to the seven plaintiffs who had presented the required certification of indigency. The other named plaintiffs failed to present similar proof and thus were not entitled to the privilege. The ruling underscored that procedural rules on joinder of parties and pauper litigation must be strictly observed to ensure orderly administration of justice.