G.R. No. 126749 August 21, 1997
ERIBERTO M. SUSON, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and DAVID S. ODILAO, JR., respondents.

FACTS

On November 15, 1993, private respondent David S. Odilao, Jr. filed a P5.15 million civil suit for damages against petitioner Eriberto M. Suson before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Juan, Southern Leyte (Branch 26). Odilao paid docket fees totaling P25,600.00. Suson filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of improper venue, alleging Odilao resided in Talisay, Cebu, not Southern Leyte. The RTC of Southern Leyte granted the motion to dismiss on May 24, 1994. Odilao then sought to re-file the same complaint in the RTC of Cebu City (Branch 6), the proper venue. Upon advice of the Cebu clerk of court, Odilao’s counsel wrote a letter on June 20, 1994, to the Supreme Court Court Administrator, requesting authorization to apply the docket fees already paid in the Southern Leyte case to the new filing in Cebu. Deputy Court Administrator Bernardo P. Abesamis replied on July 12, 1994, stating Odilao could re-file the case in Cebu City and present the official receipt for the fees paid in Southern Leyte. Based on this letter, the clerk of court of RTC Cebu City docketed the complaint as Civil Case No. CEB-16336 without requiring new payment. Suson filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the court did not acquire jurisdiction due to non-payment of docket fees. The RTC Cebu City denied the motion, upholding the Deputy Court Administrator’s authorization. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. Suson elevated the case to the Supreme Court via petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether a party litigant, whose complaint has been dismissed by a Regional Trial Court due to improper venue, can seek an authorization from the Supreme Court through the Deputy Court Administrator to re-file his complaint in the court of proper venue without payment of the prescribed docket fee.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that payment of the prescribed docket fee is a jurisdictional requirement. The Deputy Court Administrator is not empowered to grant an exemption from this payment or to authorize the application of docket fees paid in a dismissed case to a re-filed case. The office of the Court Administrator cannot grant relief beyond its powers and functions. The Court noted that even in the Supreme Court, a litigant re-filing a previously dismissed petition is required to pay the docket fee anew, not apply the fee from the dismissed case. However, under the peculiar circumstances, the Court found Odilao did not intend to evade payment but his counsel strayed from the rules. The procedural remedy of paying the prescribed docket fees was still available, provided the applicable prescriptive period had not set in. The Supreme Court ordered the RTC Cebu City (Branch 6) to require Odilao to pay the prescribed docket fees in Civil Case No. 16336 as a condition precedent for further hearing, after first ascertaining that the complaint had not been barred by prescription at the time it was filed.