Scribd
Upload
125 views1 page

Dela Paz v. CA, GR 120150, Mar. 27, 2000, 328 SCRA 707

The petitioner filed a complaint for patent infringement seeking 200,000 PHP in attorney's fees but only paid 252 PHP in filing fees. The respondents moved to dismiss for failure to pay the correct fees. The court cited its prior ruling that filing fees cannot depend on case results and are based on processing costs. It ordered the petitioner to pay additional fees of 945,636.90 PHP based on the 236 million PHP sought in the complaint. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling, finding the petitioner could amend the complaint to pay the appropriate fees based on the damages alleged, but frowned upon omitting damages from the prayer to mislead on fees.

Uploaded by

Gia Dimayuga
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
125 views1 page

Dela Paz v. CA, GR 120150, Mar. 27, 2000, 328 SCRA 707

The petitioner filed a complaint for patent infringement seeking 200,000 PHP in attorney's fees but only paid 252 PHP in filing fees. The respondents moved to dismiss for failure to pay the correct fees. The court cited its prior ruling that filing fees cannot depend on case results and are based on processing costs. It ordered the petitioner to pay additional fees of 945,636.90 PHP based on the 236 million PHP sought in the complaint. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling, finding the petitioner could amend the complaint to pay the appropriate fees based on the damages alleged, but frowned upon omitting damages from the prayer to mislead on fees.

Uploaded by

Gia Dimayuga
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

350. Dela Paz v. CA, GR 120150, Mar.

27, 2000, 328 SCRA 707

FACTS

On April 10, 1989, the Court promulgated its Decision in G.R. No. 76119 entitled
Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp. v. Court of Appeals, where it made thefollowing
pronouncement: “Filing fees are intended to take care of court expenses in the handling
of cases in terms of cost of supplies, use of equipments, salaries and fringe benefits
of personnel etc., computed as to man hours used in handling of each case. The
payment of said fees therefore, cannot be made dependent on the result of the
action taken, without entailing tremendous losses to the government and to the
judiciary in particular.”

Petitioner Adrian de la Paz is a holder of Letter of Patent No. 14132 issued by the
Patent Office on February 27, 1981 for his alleged invention Coco-diesel Fuel for diesel
engines and its manufacture. On March 7, 1983 petitioner filed a complaint with the
Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City, Branch LXII, for infringement of patent with
prayer for payment of reasonable compensation and for damages against respondents
Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp., Caltex (Phils.), Mobil Oil Philippines Inc, and Petrophil
Corporation.

At the hearing on February 19, 1985 respondents discovered that petitioner paid only
P252.00 as filing fee based on his claim for attorney’s fees in the sum of P200,000.00.
Respondents orally moved for dismissal of the complaint for failure of petitioner to pay
the correct filing fee. The trial court denied respondents’ motion to dismiss and ordered
petitioner to pay the additional docket fee in the sum of P945,636.90 computed at P4.00
per P1,000.00 in excess of the first P150,000.00 based on P236,572,350.00, the
amount petitioner seeks to recover.

ISSUE

Whether the Court’s ruling in G.R. No. 76119 gives the petitioner the right to amend his
complaint to accommodate his finances for payment of prescribed docket fees?

RULING

Yes. The Court cannot close this case without making the observation that it frowns
at the practice of counsel who filed the original complaint in this case of omitting
any specification of the amount of damages in the prayer although the amount of
over P78 million is alleged in the body of the complaint.
This is clearly intended for no other purpose than to evade the payment of the
correct filing fees if not to mislead the docket clerk in the assessment of the filing
fee.

You might also like