Você está na página 1de 8

1.

Flores vs Mallare-Phillips In the case at bar, the lower court correctly held that the jurisdictional
test is subject to the rules on joinderof parties pursuant to Section 5 of
Facts: Rule 2 and Section 6 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court and that, after
Flores sued the respondents for refusing to pay him certain amount of acareful scrutiny of the complaint, it appears that there is amisjoinder of
money as alleged in the complaint: parties for the reason that theclaims against respondents Binongcal and
Calion are separate and distinct and neither of which falls withinits
-first cause of action alleged in the complaint was against respondent jurisdiction.
Ignacio Binongcal for refusing to pay the amount of P11,643.00
representing cost of truck tires which he purchased on credit Section 6 of Rule 3 which provides as follows:Permissive joinder of
frompetitioner on various occasions from August to October, 1981; parties.-All persons in whom or against whom any right to relief
inrespect to or arising out of the same transaction or series of
-second cause of action was against respondent Fernando Calion for transactions is alleged to exist,whether jointly, severally, or in the
allegedly refusing to pay theamount of P10,212.00 representing cost of alternative, may, except as otherwise provided in theserules, join as
truck tires which he purchased on credit from petitioner onseveral plaintiffs or be joined as defendants in one complaint, where any
occasions from March, 1981 to January, 1982. question oflaw or fact common to all such plaintiffs or to all such
defendants may arise in the action;but the court may make such orders
The action was opposed by an action to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. as may be just to prevent any plaintiff or defendantfrom being
Under Sec 19 of BP 129, theregional trial court had exclusive original embarrassed or put to expense in connection with any proceedings in
jurisdiction if the amount of the demand is more than P20,000.That whichhe may have no interest
although, the other respondent was indebted in the amount of P10,
212.00, his obligation wasseparate and distinct from that of the other 2. Ching and Po Wing vs. Rodriguez Digest
respondent.The trial court by Judge Mallare (one of the respondents)
dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.Plaintiff appealed by FACTS:
certiorari in Supreme Court. The respondents filed a Complaint against the petitioners and Stroghold
Issue: Insurance Company, Global Business Bank, Inc. (formerly PhilBank),
Elena Tiu Del Pilar, Asia Atlantic Resources Ventures, Inc., Registers of
WON the trial court correctly ruled on the application of the permissive Deeds of Manila and Malabon, and all persons claiming rights or titles
joinder of parties under theRules of Court. from Ramon Ching (Ramon).

Ruling: The Complaint was captioned as one for "Disinheritance, Declaration of


Nullity of Agreement and Waiver, Affidavit of Extra-Judicial Settlement,
In cases of permissive joinder of parties, whether as plaintiffs or as Deed of Absolute Sale, Transfer Certificates of Title with Prayer for [the]
defendants, under Section 6 of Rule 3, thetotal of all the claims shall now Issuance of [a] Temporary Restraining Order and [a] Writ of Preliminary
furnish the jurisdictional test. Needless to state also, if instead of joining Injunction." In the complaint, the respondents alleged that (1) they are
or being joined in one complaint separate actions are filed by or against the heirs of Antonio Ching and that Ramon misrepresented himself as
the parties, the amount demandedin each complaint shall furnish the Antonios son when he was, in fact, adopted and his birth certificated
jurisdictional test. merely simulated; (2) Antonio was killed with Ramon as the prime
suspect and prior to the conclusion of the investigations, Ramon made An action for reconveyance and annulment of title with damages is a civil
an inventory of the formers estate and illegally transferred to his name action, whereas matters relating to settlement of the estate of a deceased
the titles to Antonios properties; (3) Ramon sweet-talked respondent person such as advancement of property made by the decedent, partake
Mercedes into surrendering to him a Certificate of Time Deposit of of the nature of a special proceeding, which concomitantly requires the
P4,000,000.00 in the name of Antonio and the TCTs of two condo units application of specific rules as provided for in the Rules of Court.
registered under Ramons name; (4) Ramon illegally transferred to his
own name through a forged document 40,000 shares in Po Wing Under Article 916 of the NCC, disinheritance can be effected only
Corporation; (5) Ramon executed an Affidavit of Extra-Judicial through a will wherein the legal cause therefor shall be specified. This
Settlement of Estate adjudicating solely to himself Antonio's entire Court agrees with the RTC and the CA that while the respondents in their
estate to the prejudice of the respondents; and (6) Ramon sold Antonio's Complaint and Amended Complaint sought the disinheritance of Ramon,
two parcels of land in Navotas to co-defendant Asia Atlantic Business no will or any instrument supposedly effecting the disposition of
Ventures, Inc. Another parcel of land, which was part of Antonio's estate, Antonio's estate was ever mentioned. Hence, despite the prayer for
was sold by Ramon to co-defendant Elena Tiu Del Pilar at an Ramon's disinheritance, the case filed does not partake of the nature of a
unreasonably low price. special proceeding and does not call for the probate court's exercise of
its limited jurisdiction.
The respondents thus prayed for the (1) issuance of a TRO to restrain
Ramon or his representatives from disposing or selling any property Even without the necessity of being declared as heirs of Antonio, the
that belongs to the estate of Antonio; (2) that Ramon be declared as respondents have the standing to seek for the nullification of the
disqualified from inheriting from Antonio Ching; and (3) declaring null instruments in the light of their claims that there was no consideration
the unauthorized transfers made by Ramon. for their execution, and that Ramon exercised undue influence and
committed fraud against them. Consequently, the respondents then
claimed that the Affidavit of Extra-Judicial Settlement of Antonios estate
executed by Ramon, and the TCTs issued upon the authority of the said
The RTC denied the petitioners Motion to Dismiss and subsequent affidavit, are null and void as well. Ramon's averment that a resolution of
Motion for Reconsideration. the issues raised shall first require a declaration of the respondents'
ISSUE: status as heirs is a mere defense which is not determinative of which
court shall properly exercise jurisdiction.
I. Whether or not the RTC should have granted the Motion to Dismiss
with regard to the issues which could only be resolved in a special In sum, this Court agrees with the CA that the nullification of the
proceeding and not in an ordinary civil action documents subject of the civil case could be achieved in an ordinary civil
action, which in this specific case was instituted to protect the
HELD: respondents from the supposedly fraudulent acts of Ramon. In the event
that the RTC will find grounds to grant the reliefs prayed for by the
No reversible errors were committed by the RTC and the CA when they respondents, the only consequence will be the reversion of the
both ruled that the denial of the petitioners' second motion to dismiss properties subject of the dispute to the estate of Antonio. The civil case
was proper. was not instituted to conclusively resolve the issues relating to the
administration, liquidation and distribution of Antonio's estate, hence,
not the proper subject of a special proceeding for the settlement of the 4. BELEN V. CHAVEZ, G.R. NO 175334 (2008)
estate of a deceased person under Rules 73-91 of the Rules of Court.
FACTS: Spouses Pacleb (private respondents) filed an action for the
The respondents' resort to an ordinary civil action before the RTC may enforcement of a foreign judgment against spouses Belen (petitioners).
not be strategically sound, because a settlement proceeding should The complaint alleged that the Pacleb secured a judgment by default
thereafter still follow, if their intent is to recover from Ramon the rendered by Judge John W. Green of the Superior Court of the State of
properties alleged to have been illegally transferred in his name. Be that California, which ordered the spouses Belen to pay $56,204.69
as it may, the RTC, in the exercise of its general jurisdiction, cannot be representing loan repayment and share in the profits plus interest and
restrained from taking cognizance of respondents' Complaint and costs of suit. The summons was served on the Belen’s address in Laguna,
Amended Complaint as the issues raised and the prayers indicated as was alleged in the complaint, and received by Marcelo M. Belen.
therein are matters which need not be threshed out in a special
proceeding 1. Spouses Belen filed an answer alleging that they were
actually residents of California and that their liability had
3. Paglaum Management and Development corp vs Union Bank already been extinguished via a release abstract
(GR 179018) judgment issued in the collection case abroad.

The sole issue to be resolved is whether Makati City is the proper venue 2. For failure to attend the pre-trial conference, the RTC
to assail the foreclosure of the subject real estate mortgage. This Court ordered the ex parte presentation of evidence for Pacleb.
rules in the affirmative.
3. Belen subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss citing the
According to the Rules, real actions shall be commenced and tried in the judgment of dismissal issued by the Superior Court of
court that has jurisdiction over the area where the property is situated. California; however the MTD was dismissed for failure to
In this case, all the mortgaged properties are located in the Province of submit a copy of the judgment of dismissal
Cebu. Thus, following the general rule, PAGLAUM and HealthTech should
have filed their case in Cebu, and not in Makati. 4. Spouses Pacleb, for their part, filed for the amendment of
the complaint, stating that they withdrew the complaint
However, the Rules provide an exception, in that real actions can be (in California) because of the prohibitive cost of
commenced and tried in a court other than where the property is litigation.
situated in instances where the parties have previously and validly
agreed in writing on the exclusive venue thereof. In the case at bar, 5. For failure of spouses Belen to appear in the rescheduled
the parties claim that such an agreement exists. The only dispute is pre-trial conference, RTC declared Belen in default and
whether the venue that should be followed is that contained in the Real allowed the presentation of ex parte evidence. In the
Estate Mortgages, as contended by Union Bank, or that in the meantime, the counsel (Alcantara) of petitioners died
Restructuring Agreement, as posited by PAGLAUM and HealthTech. This without the RTC being informed of such fact. The RTC
Court rules that the venue stipulation in the Restructuring ruled against Belen and ordered them to pay Pacleb
Agreement should be controlling. 6. A copy of the decision was sent to Atty. Alcantara but was
returned with the notation “addressee deceased.” A copy
of the same was then sent to the last known address of In an action in personam wherein the defendant is a non-resident
spouses Belen in Laguna. Atty. Culvera, the new counsel who does not voluntarily submit himself to the authority of the
of spouses Belen, filed a motion to quash the Writ of court, personal service of summons within the state is essential to
Execution as well as a notice of appeal. The RTC denied the acquisition of jurisdiction over her person. This method of
the same. service is possible if such defendant is physically present in the
country. If he is not found therein, the court cannot acquire
7. Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari (Rule jurisdiction over his person and therefore cannot validly try and
65) alleging that CA committed grave abuse of discretion decide the case against him. An exception was laid down
in denying petitioners’ motion to quash the writ of in Gemperle v. Schenker wherein a non-resident was served with
execution and notice of appeal despite sufficient legal summons through his wife, who was a resident of the Philippines
bases in support thereof. and who was his representative and attorney-in-fact in a prior civil
ISSUE: WON the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the persons of case filed by him; moreover, the second case was a mere offshoot of
petitioners through either the proper service of summons or the the first case.
appearance of Atty. Alcantara on behalf of petitioners CAB: the records of the case reveal that spouses Belen were permanent
HELD: Yes. Courts acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiffs upon the filing residents of California. It has been consistently maintained that they
of the complaint. On the other hand, jurisdiction over the defendants in were not physically resent in the Philippines. Therefore, the service of
a civil case is acquired either through the service of summons upon them summons in the petitioners’ address in Laguna was defective and did not
or through their voluntary appearance in court and their submission to serve to vest in court jurisdiction over their person. Nevertheless, the CA
its authority. As a rule, if defendants have not been summoned, the court correctly concluded that the appearance of Atty. Alcantara and his filing
acquires no jurisdiction over their person, and a judgment rendered of numerous pleadings were sufficient to vest such jurisdiction. By
against them is null and void. To be bound by a decision, a party should supplying the court with various documents that could only have been
first be subject to the court’s jurisdiction. supplied by spouses Belen, implied authorization could be gleaned from
such. In sum, there was voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the
In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is RTC.
necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case. Jurisdiction
over the person of a resident defendant who does not voluntarily appear The running of the fifteen-day period for appeal did not commence upon
in court can be acquired by personal service of summons as provided the service of the RTC decision at the address on record of Atty.
under Sec 7, Rule 14 ROC. If he cannot be personally served with Alcantara or at the Laguna address. It is deemed served on petitioners
summons within a reasonable time, substituted service may be made in only upon its receipt by Atty. Culvera on 29 December 2003. Therefore,
accordance with Sec 8 of said Rule. If he is temporarily out of the the filing of the Notice of Appeal on 06 January 2004 is within the
country, any of the following modes of service may be resorted to: (1) reglementary period and should be given due course.
substituted service set forth in Sec 8; (2) personal service outside the 5. Planters Development Bank, vs Julie Chandumal, respondent
country, with leave of court; (3) service by publication, also with leave of
court; or (4) any other manner the court may deem sufficient. Facts:
BF Homes and Julie Chandumal entered into a contract to sell a parcel of (2) The Court notes that aside from the allegation that she did not
land located in Las Pinas. Later, BF Homes sold to PDB all its rights over receive any summons, Chandumal’s motion to set aside order of default
the contract. and to admit attached answer failed to positively assert the trial court
lack of jurisdiction. In fact, what was set forth therein was the
Chandumal paid her monthly amortizations until she defaulted in her substantial claim that PDB failed to comply with the requirements of R.A.
payments. So, PDB sent a notice to Chandumal with a demand to vacate No. 6552 on payment of cash surrender value, which already delves into
the land within 30days, otherwise all of her rights will be extinguished the merits of PDB’s cause of action. In addition, Chandumal even
and the contract will be terminated and deemed rescinded. In spite of appealed the RTC decision to the CA, an act which demonstrates her
the demand, Chandumal failed to settle her account. recognition of the trial court’s jurisdiction to render said judgment.
PDB filed an action for judicial confirmation of notarial rescission and (3) R.A. No. 6552 recognizes the right of the seller to cancel the contract
delivery of possession but still Chandumal refused to do so. Summons but any such cancellation must be done in conformity with the
were then issued and served by deputy sheriff Galing but its was requirements therein prescribed. In addition to the notarial act of
unavailing as she was always out of her house on the dates the summons rescission, the seller is required to refund to the buyer the cash
were served. surrender value of the payments on the property. The actual cancellation
RTC then issued an order granting the motion of PDB. Chandumal filed of the contract can only be deemed to take place upon the expiry of a
an urgent motion to set aside order of default and to admit attached thirty (30)-day period following the receipt by the buyer of the notice of
answer. Chandumal said that she did not receive the summons and was cancellation or demand for rescission by a notarial act and the full
not notified of the same and her failure to file an answer within the payment of the cash surrender value.
reglementary period was due to fraud. RTC denied Chandumal's motion Petition is denied.
to set aside the order of default.
6. Ma. Teresa Biaco vs Philippine Countryside Rural Bank
Chandumal appealed to the CA. CA nullified the RTC's decision.
515 SCRA 106 – Civil Procedure – In rem vs In personam proceedings –
Issue: (1) Whether there was valid substituted service of summons? (2) Service of Summons – Resident Defendant – Extrinsic Fraud
Whether Chandumal voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the
RTC? (3) Whether there was proper rescission by notarial act of the Ernesto Biaco, husband of Teresa Biaco, acquired several loans from
contract to sell? Philippine Countryside Rural Bank (PCRB) from 1996 to 1998. To secure
the loans, he mortgaged certain property in favor of the bank. He was
Held: able to pay loans from 1996 to 1997 but he defaulted in loans obtained
(1) Correctly ruled that the sheriff’s return failed to justify a resort to in 1998 which amounted to more than a million pesos.
substituted service of summons. According to the CA, the Return of Eventually, PCRB filed a complaint for foreclosure against the spouses
Summons does not specifically show or indicate in detail the actual Biaco. Summons were issued by the trial judge. The Sherriff served the
exertion of efforts or any positive step taken by the officer or process summons to Ernesto at the latter’s office. No summons was served to
server in attempting to serve the summons personally to the defendant. Teresa.
Ernesto did not file a responsive pleading (so did Teresa because she made to personally serve summons upon her but that such efforts failed.
was not aware sans the summons being served her). The case was heard Further, the order of the trial court compelling Teresa to pay off the debt
ex-parte and the spouses were ordered to satisfy the debt and failure to using her personal property is a judgment in personam which the court
do so will authorize the Sheriff to auction the mortgaged the property. cannot do because it only acquired jurisdiction over the res and not over
the person of Teresa.
Eventually, the mortgaged property was auctioned for P150k which is
not sufficient to cover the P1 M+ debt. Upon motion by PCRB, a notice of On the issue of extrinsic fraud, the Court of Appeals, agreeing with PCRB,
levy was issued against the personal properties of Teresa to satisfy the is correct that there is none in the case at bar. Extrinsic fraud exists
deficiency. when there is a fraudulent act committed by the prevailing party outside
of the trial of the case, whereby the defeated party was prevented from
It was only at this point that Teresa learned of the previous ex parte presenting fully his side of the case by fraud or deception practiced on
proceedings. She then sought to have the judgment annulled as she now him by the prevailing party. Extrinsic fraud is present where
claims that she was deprived of due process when she did not receive the unsuccessful party had been prevented from exhibiting fully his case,
summons; that it was only her husband who received the summons; that by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent, as by keeping
there was extrinsic fraud because her husband deliberately hid the fact him away from court, a false promise of a compromise; or where
of the foreclosure proceeding. the defendant never had knowledge of the suit, being kept in ignorance
PRCB argued that the foreclosure proceeding is an action quasi in rem, by the acts of the plaintiff; or where an attorney fraudulently or without
hence Teresa’s participation is not required so long as the court acquires authority assumes to represent a party and connives at his defeat; or
jurisdiction over the res which is what happened in the case at bar; that where the attorney regularly employed corruptly sells out his client’s
Teresa cannot invoke extrinsic fraud because such situation cannot interest to the other side. The above is not applicable in the case of
occur in her case because she is a co-defendant of Ernesto. Teresa. It was not PCRB which made any fraud. It should be noted that
spouses Biaco were co-defendants in the case and shared the same
ISSUE: Whether or not the judgment of the trial court should be interest.
annulled.

HELD: Yes. It is admitted that the proceeding is a quasi in rem


proceeding and that the presence of Teresa is not required because the 7. ERNESTO V. YU and ELSIE O. YU, Petitioners, vs.BALTAZAR
trial court was able to acquire jurisdiction over the res (mortgaged PACLEB, Respondent.
property). HOWEVER, her constitutional right to due process is superior NATURE OF THE CASE: This petition was filed to set aside the decision
over the procedural matters mentioned. Her right to due process was made by the Court of Appeals in ruling that the respondent has the
violated when she did not receive summons. Teresa, as a resident better right over the subject property and is the true owner thereof.
defendant, who does not voluntary appear in court must
be personally served with summons as provided under Section 6, Rule
14 of the Rules of Court. Even if the action is quasi in rem, personal
service of summons is essential in order to afford her due process. The FACTS: Respondent Baltazar Pacleb and his late first wife, Angelita Chan,
substituted service made by the sheriff at her husband’s office cannot be are the owners of parcel of land in Langcaan, Dasmarinas, Cavite covered
deemed proper service absent any explanation that efforts had been by a transfer certificate of title.
Sometime in September 1992, Ruperto Javier offered the said land to On November 23, 1995, the petitioners filed an action for forcible
spouses Ernesto and Elsie Yu. Javier claimed that he purchased the entry against the respondent with the MTC. They contend that they had
property from Rebecca Del Rosario who bought it from spouses Baltazar prior physical possession over the property through their trustee Ramon
Pacleb and Angelita Chan. Despite the alleged sales being unregistered, Pacleb, until the respondent ousted them in September 1995. The MTC
the spouses Yu accepted the offer and made a down payment and and the RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners, but the Court of Appeals set
entered into an Agreement for the sale of the property. After giving the aside the decisions of the lower courts. The CA decided that it was the
amount, the spouses Yu discovered that a portion of the property was respondent who had prior physical possession of the property which
tenanted by Ramon Pacleb, one of the respondent's sons. The petitioners was shown by his payment of real estate taxes thereon.
then demanded the cancellation of their agreement and the return of
their initial payment. On May 29, 1996, respondent filed an instant case for removal of
cloud from title with damages alleging that the deed of sale between him
Javier then made arrangements with Ramon to vacate the property and and his late first wife could not have been executed on the date
to pay Ramon for his disturbance compensation. With that, Javier and appearing thereon. He claimed that he was residing in the US at that time
the spouses YU proceeded to enter into a Contract to Sell. But, Javier and that his late first wife died 20 years ago.
failed to comply with his obligations. So, on April 23, 1993, the
petitioners filed with the RTC a Complaint for specific performance and On May 28, 1997, while the case was still pending, the respondent
damages against Javier to compel Javier to deliver to them ownership died, hence, he was substituted by his surviving spouse and some of his
and possession, and the title to the property. children.

However, Javier did not appear in the proceedings and was On December 27, 2002, the respondent's case was dismissed and
declared in default, so, the trial court rendered a decision in favor of the the petitioners were held to be purchasers in good faith. The trial court
petitioners. The decision and its Certificate of Finality were annotated in also held that the petitioners' action for specific performance against
the title of the property. Javier was already final, and the trial court also ordered the respondents'
heirs and all other persons claiming under them to surrender the
On March 10, 1995, the petitioners and Ramon and his wife possession of the property to the petitioners. Upon appeal by the
entered into an agreement that the spouses will pay Ramon P500,000 in respondent, the CA reversed the trial court's decision. Hence, this
exchange for the waiver of his tenancy rights over the land. petition.

On October 12, 1995, the respondent filed a Complaint for ISSUE: WON the action for specific performance filed by the petitioners
annulment of deed of sale and other documents arising from it claiming against Javier is not merely an action in personam, but an action in rem,
that the deed of sale supposedly executed between him and his late first and is thus, conclusive and binding upon respondent even if he was not a
wife and Del Rosario was spurious and the signatures were forged. He party thereto since it involves a question of possession and ownership of
also moved for the summons to be served upon Del Rosario via real property.
publication since her address cannot be found, but was denied. So,
respondent moved to dismiss the case which was granted by the trial HELD: The action for specific performance and damages filed by
court. petitioners against Javier to compel him to perform his obligations under
their Contract to Sell is an action in personam.
The purpose of the action is to compel Javier to accept the full payment Here, since the proper docket fee was not paid for the original complaint,
of the purchase price, and to execute a deed of absolute sale over the it’s as if there is no complaint to speak of. As a consequence, there is no
property in favor of the petitioners. The obligations of Javier mentioned original complaint duly filed which can be amended. So, any subsequent
attach to Javier alone and do not burden the property. Thus, the proceeding taken in consideration of the amended complaint is void.
complaint filed by the petitioners is an action in personam and is binding
only upon the parties properly impleaded therein and duly heard or Manchester’s defense that this case is primarily an action for specific
given an opportunity to be heard. So, the action cannot bind the performance is not merited. The Supreme Court ruled that based on the
respondent since he was not a party therein and considering the fact that allegations and the prayer of the complaint, this case is an action for
his signature and that of his late first wife were forged in the deed of damages and for specific performance. Hence, it is capable of pecuniary
sale. Hence, the petition is denied and the Court affirms the ruling of the estimation.
CA finding the respondent having a better right over the property as the Further, the amount for damages in the original complaint was already
true owner thereof. provided in the body of the complaint. Its omission in the PRAYER
8. Manchester Development vs Court of Appeals clearly constitutes an attempt to evade the payment of the proper filing
fees. To stop the happenstance of similar irregularities in the future, the
SCRA 562 – Remedial Law – Civil Procedure – Payment of Docket Fees – Supreme Court ruled that from this case on, all complaints, petitions,
Claimed Damages must be Stated in the BODY and PRAYER of pleadings 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
A complaint for specific performance was filed by Manchester the prayer, and said damages shall be considered in the assessment of
Development Corporation against City Land Development Corporation the filing fees in any case. Any pleading that fails to comply with this
to compel the latter to execute a deed of sale in favor Manchester. requirement shall not bib accepted nor admitted, or shall otherwise be
Manchester also alleged that City Land forfeited the former’s tender of expunged from the record.
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.

Você também pode gostar