Digest Author: Alexi Calda
5. City of Naga argued in its Counterclaim that they had no cause of
Algura v. LGU (2006)
Petitioner: Spouses Algura
Respondent: LGU of City of Naga, Atty. Teoxon, Engr. Palmiano, Sergio
and Navarro Sr.
Ponencia: Velasco, Jr.
DOCTRINE: If the applicant for exemption meets the salary and
property requirements under Section 19 of Rule 141, then the grant of
the application is mandatory. On the other hand, when the application
does not satisfy one or both requirements, then the application should
not be denied outright; instead, the court should apply the indigency
test under Section 21 of Rule 3 and use its sound discretion in
determining the merits of the prayer for exemption.
See A/N for short explanation
FACTS:
1. Spouses Algura (Antonio and Lorencita) filed a complaint for
damages against the Naga City government and its officers due to
an alleged illegal demolition of their residence and boarding house
and for payment of lost income derived from fees paid by their
boarders (P7,000 monthly).
2. Simultaneously, they filed an Ex Parte Motion to Litigate as Indigent
Litigants to which Antonio Alguras Pay Slip was attached.
a. It showed a gross monthly income of around P10,400 and
a net pay of around P3,600.
b. A Certification stating that they had no property declared
in their name for tax purposes was also appended.
3. The motion was granted so they were exempted from payment of
filing fees.
4. They claim that as a result of the demolition of a portion of their
house, they allegedly lost a monthly income of P7,000. With this
alleged lost, the meager income from Lorencitas sari-sari store
and Antonios pay became insufficient for the expenses of the
spouses and their 6 minor children for basic needs like food, bills,
clothes, and schooling.
action since the boarding house blocked the road right of way
and such was a nuisance per se.
6. During the pre-trial, City of Naga filed a Motion to Disqualify them
as Indigent Litigants and subsequently, a Motion to Disqualify for
Non-Payment of Filing Fees. It alleged that the spouses had the ff
sources of income:
a. Antonios net salary as a member of the PNP P3,000
b. Lorencitas sari-sari store and computer shop (ground
floor)
nd
c. Boarding house located on the 2 floor: more than P3,000 a
month
7. Despite Spouses Alguras opposition, Naga RTC disqualified them
as indigent litigants on the ground that they failed to substantiate
their claim for exemption and to pay the filing fees.
8. In compliance with such, Lorencita together with their neighbor
Bangate submitted affidavits in support of the spouses claim as
indigents.
9. The RTC denied their MR on the ground that Sec 18, Rule 141
provides that the gross income of the litigant should not exceed
P3,000. Nowhere was it stated in the affidavit that the family did not
earn a gross income of P3,000. Thus, Spouses Algura filed a
Petition for review on Certiorari of the order of the RTC with the
SC.
ISSUE: WoN Spouses Algura should be considered as indigent litigants
who qualify for exemption from paying filing fees
PROVISION:
Rule 3, Section 21. Indigent party (JULY 1, 1997).
xxx
Such authority shall include an exemption from payment of docket and
other lawful fees, and of transcripts of stenographic notes which the
court may order to be furnished him. The amount of the docket and
other lawful fees which the indigent was exempted from paying shall be
a lien on any judgment rendered in the case favorable to the indigent,
unless the court otherwise provides.
Digest Author: Alexi Calda
xxx o Naga City RTC is ordered to set the hearing to determine
WoN petitioners can qualify as indigent litigants.
Rule 141, Section 16 (JULY 1984-FEB 28 2000). Pauper-litigants exempt DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the April 14,
from payment of court fees.Pauper-litigants include wage earners whose 2000 Order granting the disqualification of petitioners, the July 17, 2000
gross income do not exceed P2,000.00 a month or P24,000.00 a year for Order denying petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration, and the September
those residing in Metro Manila, and P1,500.00 a month or P18,000.00 a 11, 2001 Order dismissing the case in Civil Case No. RTC-99-4403 before
year for those residing outside Metro Manila, or those who do not own the Naga City RTC, Branch 27 are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.
real property with an assessed value of not more than P24,000.00, or not Furthermore, the Naga City RTC is ordered to set the "Ex-Parte Motion to
more than P18,000.00 as the case may be. Litigate as Indigent Litigants" for hearing and apply Rule 3, Section 21 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure to determine whether petitioners can qualify as
Rule 141, Section 18 (MARCH 2000 amended Section 16 the indigent litigants.
abovementioned provision). Pauper-litigants exempt from payment of legal
fees.Pauper litigants (a) whose gross income and that of their A/N: Sorry I had to paste the provisions to illustrate the differences. Just
immediate family do not exceed four thousand (P4,000.00) pesos a remember that Rule 3, section 21 = indigency test while Rule 141, Section 18
month if residing in Metro Manila, and three thousand (P3,000.00) pesos sets the income and property requirements. So
a month if residing outside Metro Manila, and (b) who do not own real
property with an assessed value of more than fifty thousand (P50,000.00) MANDATORY APPROVAL: Compliance with both income and property
requirement
pesos shall be exempt from the payment of legal fees...
INDIGENCY TEST THROUGH A HEARING ON MERITS: One or both are
***Theres a 2004 amendment but it is not relevant to this case not satisfied
RULING + RATIO: NO
The RTC in in its April 14, 2000 and July 17, 2000 order wrongly
applied Rule 141, Section 18 on Legal Fees considering that the
complaint was filed on September 1, 1999.
The correct rules were Rule 3, Section 21 on Indigent Party and
Rule 141, Section 16 on Pauper Litigants. See dates of effectivity
in the provisions part.
o Implication: Two requirements were a) income: not more
than P24,000 [P2,000 or P1500 a month as the case may
be] b) property: not more than P24,000 or P18,000.
In this case, gross monthly income around P10k plus P3k from are
combined, they are clearly above P1,500. This is also true even if
the 2004 amendment of P3,000 a month limit is applied.
o Rule 141 2000 and 2004 amendments also did not repeal
Rule 3, Section 21.
Therefore, if the applicant for exemption meets the salary and
property requirements under Section 19 of Rule 141, then the
grant of the application is mandatory. On the other hand, when
the application does not satisfy one or both requirements, then
the application should not be denied outright; instead, the court
should apply the indigency test under Section 21 of Rule 3
and use its sound discretion in determining the merits of the
prayer for exemption.
o Spouses Algura do not own any property