G.R. No. 85879 September 29, 1989
NG SOON, petitioner, vs. HON. ALOYSIUS ALDAY, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, QUEZON CITY, BILLIE GAN AND CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ng Soon filed a complaint for reconstitution of a savings account and payment of damages against respondents Billie Gan and China Banking Corporation (CBC). She claimed to be the widow of Gan Bun Yaw, who allegedly maintained a savings account with CBC containing approximately P900,000.00. The complaint alleged that the account was closed in 1977 through forged signatures while Gan Bun Yaw was comatose. Ng Soon sought the reconstitution of the account or payment of the principal sum with interest, moral and exemplary damages of “not less than P50,000.00,” and attorney’s fees equivalent to twenty percent of all amounts recovered. She paid a docket fee of P3,600.00 upon filing.
Respondents moved to expunge the complaint for non-payment of the correct docket fees, arguing that the amounts for moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees were not specifically stated in the body of the complaint, making the assessment of fees impossible. The Regional Trial Court, applying the strict rule from Manchester Development Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, granted the motion and dismissed the case. It held that the vague allegations, particularly the “not less than” phrasing and the indeterminate twenty percent attorney’s fees clause, constituted an evasion of proper docket fees.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the complaint for non-payment of the prescribed docket fees based on the strict application of the Manchester ruling.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s orders and directed the reinstatement of the civil case. The legal logic departed from a literal and rigid application of the Manchester doctrine. The Court clarified that while payment of the docket fee is jurisdictional, the rule admits of flexibility where there is a demonstrable willingness to pay the correct fees and no intent to defraud the government.
The Court distinguished this case from Manchester, where a patent pattern to evade payment was evident. Here, the petitioner paid the assessed fee of P3,600.00 and even asked the court to inform her of any deficiency, showing good faith. Furthermore, the Court cited the provision in Rule 141, Section 5(a) of the Rules of Court, which explicitly allows for an initial payment based on the estimated claim, subject to later adjustment—either by refund or additional payment—once the final amount is proven during trial. The allegations for unspecified moral, exemplary, and attorney’s fees were deemed sufficient for an initial assessment, with any deficiency to be paid later. The ruling in Sun Insurance Office Ltd. vs. Asuncion, which relaxed the Manchester rule by allowing payment within a reasonable time, was controlling. The issue regarding Ng Soon’s identity as the widow was deemed a factual matter for the trial court to resolve.