GR 85847; (December, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. No. 85847 December 21, 1989
SPOUSES BELEN GREGORIO, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE JUDGE ZOSIMO Z. ANGELES, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Makati, Branch 58, SPOUSES SYLVIA AND RAMON CARRION, and THE OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF OF MAKATI, respondents.
FACTS
The petitioners filed a complaint for a sum of money against the private respondents arising from a loan. Their initial complaint was dismissed due to their failure to appear at pre-trial and file a pre-trial brief. Subsequently, they filed a second complaint, which was essentially identical to the first. The prayer in both complaints sought the payment of a specified principal amount, attorney’s fees, interest, litigation expenses, and exemplary damages “subject to the discretion of the Honorable Court,” without stating a specific sum for the exemplary damages.
The private respondents moved to dismiss the second complaint, arguing that the failure to specify the amount of exemplary damages sought violated the Supreme Court’s ruling in Manchester Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals and the implementing Circular No. 7. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the case, holding that the petitioners failed to comply with the circular by not specifying the amount for exemplary damages, thereby preventing the proper assessment of docket fees.
ISSUE
Whether the failure of the complaint to specify the sum of exemplary damages sought warrants its dismissal under the ruling in Manchester Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal was erroneous and reinstated the complaint. The legal logic is that the Manchester ruling, which requires the specification of damages to determine the correct docket fees, is not fatal in this case. The complaint specified precise amounts for the principal loan, attorney’s fees, interest, and litigation expenses. These specified sums provided a sufficient basis for the Clerk of Court to compute the docket fees payable. The demand for exemplary damages, being discretionary under Article 2233 of the Civil Code and not requiring prior proof of a specific amount, did not render the complaint fatally defective.
The Court distinguished this case from Manchester, which involved a clear attempt to defraud the government by deliberately omitting amounts to avoid paying docket fees. Here, there was no such fraudulent intent. The essence of the action was a demand for specific performance on a contract of loan with ascertainable actual damages. The unspecified exemplary damages were merely ancillary. The teaching of Manchester is that dismissal is warranted only when the complaint states no amounts at all, leaving the court to mere guesswork in assessing fees. Since the complaint here stated sufficient sums for actual damages, the trial court could properly assess fees on that basis and later determine exemplary damages during trial. Therefore, the petition was granted, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.