G.R. No. 244140 , February 03, 2021
BENSON CHUA, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES PHILIP L. GO AND DIANA G GO, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Benson Chua filed a Complaint for Declaration of Trust and Reconveyance against respondents Spouses Philip L. Go and Diana G. Go, alleging he bought two parcels of land in 1991 but had the titles placed under Philip Go’s name in trust due to his shaky marriage. When he demanded transfer, respondents refused. The RTC initially dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, but the CA reversed and remanded the case. Upon remand, respondents filed motions concerning petitioner’s payment of docket fees. The Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC) initially certified petitioner paid P111,157.60, but a subsequent re-assessment indicated a deficiency of P91,835.40, as the original computation used an incorrect zonal valuation. The RTC, in an order issued in open court on December 7, 2012, directed petitioner to pay the deficiency of P91,735.40 within ten days. Copies of the written order were sent to petitioner’s addresses on record but were returned unserved with the notation “RTS-moved.” Petitioner failed to pay. The RTC dismissed the case on February 21, 2013, for failure to pay the required docket fees. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing the period to pay never commenced as his counsel did not receive the order, and contested the computation. The RTC denied the motion, noting service to petitioner was valid and his counsel was present in court when the order was issued. The CA affirmed the dismissal, ruling jurisdiction did not properly attach due to non-payment and that petitioner evaded payment by challenging the assessment. Petitioner paid the deficiency while the case was pending before the CA.

ISSUE

1. Whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC’s dismissal even though petitioner paid the deficiency in docket fees while the case was pending before the CA.
2. Whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC’s order even though neither petitioner nor his counsel allegedly received a copy of the order directing payment of the deficiency.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the CA’s Decision and Resolution.
1. On the payment of deficiency docket fees: The Court ruled that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the case due to insufficient payment of docket fees. While the rule on docket fees was later relaxed in Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. v. Asuncion, allowing payment within a reasonable time, the trial court in this case acted judiciously. It did not dismiss outright, gave petitioner a chance to pay, sent notices, and waited for returns. Petitioner failed to pay within the given period and did not demonstrate a willingness to pay promptly, instead contesting the computation. His payment during the CA appeal was deemed too late. The negligence of his counsel in not informing him of the court order and his failure to update his address bound him.
2. On the service of the order: The Court held that service of the December 7, 2012 order was valid. The order was issued in open court in the presence of petitioner’s counsel, Atty. Zosa, who had a duty to inform his client. Service of copies to petitioner’s addresses of record was proper under the rules. Petitioner’s failure to notify the court of his change of address made the service to the old addresses effective. Therefore, the period to pay commenced, and his non-compliance warranted dismissal.