G.R. No. 195215 . March 6, 2019.
EMPIRE INSURANCE, INC., MARIO A. REMOROSA, VIRGINIA BELINDA S. OCAMPO, JOSE AUGUSTO G. SANTOS, and KATRINA G. SANTOS, Petitioners, vs. ATTY. MARCIANO S. BACALLA, JR., ATTY. EDUARDO M. ABACAN, ERLINDA U. LIM, FELICITO A. MADAMBA, PEPITO M. DELGADO, and THE FEDERATION OF INVESTORS TULUNGAN, INC., Respondents.

FACTS

This case originated from the liquidation of the Tibayan Group of Companies. The court-appointed receiver, Atty. Marciano S. Bacalla, Jr., filed a complaint to recover 650,225 Prudential Bank shares allegedly acquired using the Tibayan Group’s funds through dummy corporations and subsequently sold to various parties, including the petitioners (Empire Insurance, Inc., et al.). The complaint, which included a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction to prevent the dissipation of the shares, alleged securities fraud and sought annulment and specific performance. The Clerk of Court computed the filing fees based on the shares’ par value of Php 100.00.
The petitioners, as defendants below, moved to dismiss the complaint on jurisdictional grounds, contending that the filing fees were grossly deficient. They argued that the correct basis should have been the shares’ alleged market value, ranging from Php 400.00 to Php 700.00 per share. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the motion and granted the writ of preliminary injunction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC, holding that the action was primarily for the recovery of shares, not for a sum of money, and thus the par value was the proper basis for computing fees.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the case despite the alleged insufficiency of the filing fees paid by the respondents.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The legal logic centers on the proper basis for computing filing fees for an action involving shares of stock. The Court held that where the primary relief sought is the recovery of specific corporate shares, not the payment of money, the filing fees should be computed based on the par value of the shares under Section 7(a) of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court. The Court distinguished the case from Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. v. Asuncion, which applies to actions for the recovery of a sum of money where the value of the claim is alleged or specified. Here, the complaint sought the declaration of nullity of transactions and the recovery of specific shares in kind. The allegation of a higher market value was incidental and did not convert the action into one for monetary recovery. Since the respondents paid the fees based on the par value, the payment was correct and sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the RTC. The Court further found no grave abuse of discretion in the grant of the preliminary injunction, as the RTC determined that the respondents established a clear right to the preservation of the assets pending litigation.