CIVIL PROCEDURE - 024 Tokio Marine Malaya Insurance Co, Inc. vs.

Jorge Valdez (2008) Doctrine: GR: Courts acquire jurisdiction only upon payment of the prescribed docket fees. XPN: When the party is authorized to litigate his action, claim or defense as an indigent. Facts: Legend: (P): Tokio Marine, an company engaged in the insurance business and its corporate officers and consultants, (R): Jorge Valdez, former unit manager of Tokio Marine 1. 2. 1977: Tokio Marine and (R) entered into a Unit Management Contract. 1998: (R) filed a complaint for damages against (P) before the RTC alleging that (P) violated terms of the Contract by refusing to pay him, among others, his commissions and bonuses a. He prayed that he be awarded the ff: i. actual damages in the total amount of P71,866,205.67 and the corresponding interests; ii. moral damages of P10,000,000.00; iii. exemplary damages amounting to P10,000,000.00; iv. attorneys fees corresponding to 30% of the said amounts; v. costs of the suit. (R): Urgent Ex Parte Motion For Authority To Litigate As Indigent Plaintiff October 28, 1998 RTC Order allowed (R) to litigate as a pauper and ordered the CoC to accept the complaint for filing without payment of filing fees computed as... (P615,672.83) which amount, however, shall constitute a lien upon any judgment to be rendered in favor of the plaintiff. (P): Motions to Dismiss (R): manifested that he filed various criminal complaints against the (P) RTC denied the MtoDismiss (P): Motion for Reconsideration a. denied (P): filed Answer Ad Cautelam (P): filed a petition for certiorari with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction of the order of the trial court denying their motions to dismiss. PETITION #1 CA: directed issuance of a preliminary injunction of the civil case during the pendency of the petition (R), now 75 years old and sickly, filed before the CA an Urgent Notice of Taking of Deposition Upon Oral Examination of Private Respondent Jorge Valdez For Purposes of the Above-Captioned Pending Case And For Such Other Legal Purposes As May Be Warranted By Existing Law and Jurisprudence. (P): filed before the CA a petition to cite (R) in contempt of court for violating the preliminary injunction issued by the CA. PETITION #2 The two petitions were consolidated. The deposition of (R) was taken by a notary public and was filed by the latter with the CA. The CA dismissed the petitions and lifted and dissolved the writ of preliminary injunction. Hence these two consolidated petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

3. 4.

5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

Petitioners arguments [ISSUES]: 1. CA erred in denying (P)s motions to dismiss (R)s complaint for non-payment of docket fees (NO) 2. CA erred in not finding that (R) engaged in forum shopping (NO) 3. CA erred in not finding that (R) was guilty of contempt of court (NO) Held/Ratio: 1. GR: Courts acquire jurisdiction only upon payment of the prescribed docket fees a. The exception is Section 21, Rule 3, ROC:

SEC. 21. Indigent party. A party may be authorized to litigate his action, claim or defense as an indigent if the court, upon an ex parte application and hearing, is satisfied that the party is one who has no money or property sufficient and available for food, shelter and basic necessities for himself and his family. 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. xxx

2.

Furthermore, Sec. 19 of Rule 141 of the ROC provides that:

SEC. 19. Indigent litigants exempt from payment of legal fees. Indigent litigant (a) whose gross income and that of their immediate family do not exceed an amount double the monthly minimum wage of an employee and (b) who do not own real property with a fair market value as stated in the current tax declaration of more than three hundred thousand pesos (p300,000.00) shall be exempt from the payment of legal fees. The legal fees shall be a lien on any judgment rendered in the case favorable to the indigent unless the court otherwise provides. To be entitled to the exemption herein provided, the litigant shall execute an affidavit that he and his immediate family do not earn a gross income abovementioned nor they own any real property with the fair value aforementioned, supported by an affidavit of a disinterested person attesting to the truth of the litigants affidavit. The current tax declaration, if any, shall be attached to the litigants affidavit. xxx

3.

4.

For purposes of a suit in forma pauperis, an indigent litigant is not really a pauper, but is properly a person who is an indigent although not a public charge he has no property or income sufficient for his support aside from his labor, even if he is selfsupporting when able to work and in employment. Given the above Rule, affidavits of members of the (R)s family is not required. Also, the Supreme Court, as a court of law, will not examine the sufficiency of the (R)s affidavit that he is an indigent.

Other issues: 1. Forum shopping a. (R)s Certification of Non-forum Shopping attached to his complaint is substantial compliance with the Rule. b. It should also be recalled that he manifested before the court that he filed several criminal complaints against the (P). 2. Contempt of court a. a defiance of the authority, justice or dignity of the court: such conduct as tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or to interfere with or prejudice parties litigants or their witnesses during litigation. b. Indirect contempt of court = contumacious acts perpetrated outside of the sitting of the court and may include misbehavior of an officer of a court in the performance of his official duties or in his official transactions, disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, judgment, or command of a court, or injunction granted by a court or a judge, any abuse or any unlawful interference with the process or proceedings of a court not constituting direct contempt, or any improper conduct tending directly or indirectly to impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of justice. c. The ff requisites must be complied with before a person may be charged with indirect contempt of court: i. a charge in writing to be filed; ii. an opportunity for respondent to comment thereon within such period as may be fixed by the court; and iii. an opportunity to be heard by himself or by counsel d. The aforementioned requisites were complied with and the CA ruled that the filing of the deposition was done by the (R) in good faith to clarify such misunderstanding in the previous depositions.

e.

Moreover, taking the (R)s deposition is not part of the proceedings of civil case thus, not covered by the writ of preliminary injunction.

Digested by: Justa Aurea G. Bautista A2015