Manchester Development vs Court of Appeals

149 SCRA 562 – Remedial Law – Civil Procedure – Payment of Docket Fees – Claimed Damages
must be Stated in the BODY and PRAYER of pleadings

A complaint for specific performance was filed by Manchester Development Corporation against
City Land Development Corporation to compel the latter to execute a deed of sale in favor
Manchester. Manchester also alleged that City Land forfeited the former’s tender of payment for
a certain transaction thereby causing damages to Manchester amounting to P78,750,000.00. This
amount was alleged in the BODY of their Complaint but it was not reiterated in the PRAYER of
same complaint. Manchester paid a docket fee of P410.00 only. Said docket fee is premised on
the allegation of Manchester that their action is primarily for specific performance hence it is
incapable of pecuniary estimation. The court ruled that there is an under assessment of docket
fees hence it ordered Manchester to amend its complaint. Manchester complied but what it did
was to lower the amount of claim for damages to P10M. Said amount was however again not
stated in the PRAYER.

ISSUE: Whether or not the amended complaint should be admitted.

HELD: No. The docket fee, its computation, should be based on the original complaint. A case is
deemed filed only upon payment of the appropriate docket fee regardless of the actual date of
filing in court. Here, since the proper docket fee was not paid for the original complaint, it’s as if
there is no complaint to speak of. As a consequence, there is no original complaint duly filed
which can be amended. So, any subsequent proceeding taken in consideration of the amended
complaint is void.
Manchester’s defense that this case is primarily an action for specific performance is not merited.
The Supreme Court ruled that based on the allegations and the prayer of the complaint, this case
is an action for damages and for specific performance. Hence, it is capable of pecuniary
estimation.
Further, the amount for damages in the original complaint was already provided in the body of
the complaint. Its omission in the PRAYER clearly constitutes an attempt to evade the payment
of the proper filing fees. To stop the happenstance of similar irregularities in the future, the
Supreme Court ruled that from this case on, all complaints, petitions, answers and other similar
pleadings should specify the amount of damages being prayed for not only in the body of the
pleading but also in the prayer, and said damages shall be considered in the assessment of the
filing fees in any case. Any pleading that fails to comply with this requirement shall not bib
accepted nor admitted, or shall otherwise be expunged from the record.