G.R. No. L-34840 July 20, 1982
MARIO RODIS MAGASPI, et al., petitioners, vs. HON. JOSE R. RAMOLETE, et al., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners filed a complaint for recovery of ownership and possession of land with damages against several corporate respondents in the Court of First Instance of Cebu. They paid P60.00 as docketing fee and P10.00 as sheriff’s fee. The complaint sought multiple reliefs, including declaration of nullity of a title, reconveyance, recovery of unpaid rentals totaling P890,633.24, moral damages of P500,000, exemplary damages of P500,000, attorney’s fees of P250,000, and the land’s value of P1,250,000. Respondents moved to compel payment of the correct docket fee, arguing the claims for damages and land value should be included in the computation, which would result in a fee of P6,732.00. The trial court ordered petitioners to pay an additional P3,104.00 based on the original complaint.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly assessed the additional docket fee based on the petitioners’ original complaint.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition. The legal logic proceeds from two key principles. First, jurisdiction over the case was acquired upon the initial payment and docketing, notwithstanding the insufficiency of the amount, as there was an honest difference of opinion on the correct computation, distinguishing it from cases of palpably inadequate payments that vitiate jurisdiction. Second, and decisively, the correct basis for computing the additional fee is the amended complaint, not the original. The Court applied the settled rule that once a pleading is amended, the original pleading is deemed abandoned and ceases to perform any function. The case stands for trial on the amended pleading only. Therefore, the trial court erred in basing its assessment on the abandoned original complaint. The petitioners were ordered to pay the additional docket fee based on their amended complaint, after which proceedings should resume.