G.R. No. 184827 , February 11, 2015
FELIPE JHONNY A. FRIAS, JR. AND HEIRS OF ROGELIO B. VENERACION, Petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE EDWIN D. SORONGON, ASSISTING JUDGE, BRANCH 211, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MANDALUYONG CITY; FIRST ASIA REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND/OR SM PRIME HOLDINGS, INC., AND ORTIGAS & COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Felipe Jhonny Frias, Jr. and Rogelio Veneracion (predecessor of the petitioner-heirs) filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of certificates of title with damages against respondents before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaluyong City, docketed as Civil Case No. MC07-3276. They claimed co-ownership of land covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 779 and alleged that Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 126575 registered in the name of Ortigas & Company Limited Partnership was falsified and spurious, rendering all derivative titles void. Concurrently, petitioners filed a Motion for Leave and to Admit Complaint of Indigent Litigants, supported by certifications from city assessors showing no real property registered under their names, sworn statements from acquaintances attesting to their lack of steady jobs or property, and hospital documents indicating Veneracion’s medical confinement and financial need. The Executive Judge granted the motion, allowing the filing as indigents with the docket fees to constitute a lien on any favorable judgment.
Respondents separately moved to dismiss the complaint. Among the grounds raised were lack of jurisdiction due to non-payment of docket fees and petitioners’ failure to qualify as indigent litigants. The presiding judge initially denied one motion to dismiss, but after her retirement, the case was reassigned to respondent Judge Edwin D. Sorongon. Respondent judge, noting a prior order he issued in a related case (Civil Case No. MC07-3226) requiring payment of docket fees, issued the assailed March 18, 2008 Order, directing petitioners to pay the proper docket fees within sixty (60) days, with a warning of dismissal for non-compliance. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the orders requiring petitioners to pay docket fees despite the Executive Judge’s prior grant of indigent status.

RULING

No, respondent judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed orders.
The Court emphasized that the petition should have been dismissed outright for violating the rule on hierarchy of courts, as the extraordinary writs of certiorari and mandamus sought could have been first filed with the Court of Appeals. On the merits, the Court held that the grant of indigent status by the Executive Judge was provisional and did not preclude a subsequent review by the trial court. The respondent judge properly evaluated petitioners’ claim of indigency in light of the mandatory requirements under Section 19, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, which necessitates a hearing or opportunity to present evidence. The record showed that petitioners were afforded such opportunity through hearings on the motions to dismiss filed by respondents, where their counsel was present and they filed oppositions. Thus, petitioners were not deprived of due process or their right to free access to courts. The respondent judge’s orders, based on a judicious assessment of the submissions, were within his discretion and not tainted with grave abuse.