PHILIPPINE FIRST INSURANCE CO.
, INC v PYRAMID  While it is true that the determination of certain damages x x x is
LOGISTICS AND TRUCKING CORPORATION
G.R. No. 165147 July 9, 2008
(docket fees)
Facts:
Petitioners filed a MTD against Pyramid on the ground that they
failed to pay the correct docket fees.
Pyramid had filed in the RTC an action for specific performance and
damages. In their original complaint it failed to allege the amount of
damages sought to be recovered. In their amended complaint, it
alleged the damages for recovery in the body of the complaint but
not in the prayer. As a result, it only paid a minimal amount of
docket fees.
Petitioners saw this as a deliberate attempt to evade payment of
docket fees and thus filed the aforementioned MTD.
Pyramid filed its Opposition, alleging that if there was a mistake in
the assessment of the docket fees, the trial court was not precluded
from acquiring jurisdiction over the complaint as “it has the authority
to direct the mistaken party to complete the docket fees in the course
of the proceedings.”
RTC ruled in favor of Pyramid.
CA ruled in favor of Petitioners.
Issues:
 Whether Pyramid which filed a complaint, denominated as one
for specific performance and damages, against petitioners RTC
paid the correct docket fee?
 If in the negative, whether the complaint should be dismissed or
Pyramid can still be ordered to pay the fee?
Ruling: Pyramid failed to pay the correct docket fees, they are
ordered to pay the correct fees within a reasonable time.
Ratio:
 As will be noted, the requirement in Circular No. 7 that
complaints, petitions, answers, and similar pleadings should
specify the amount of damages being prayed for not only in the
body of the pleading but also in the prayer, has not been altered.
 What has been revised is the rule that subsequent “amendment
of the complaint or similar pleading will not thereby vest
jurisdiction in the Court, much less the payment of the docket fee
based on the amount sought in the amended pleading,” the trial
court now being authorized to allow payment of the fee within
a reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable
prescriptive period or reglementary period.
 Moreover, a new rule has been added, governing the awards of
claims not specified in the pleading – i.e., damages arising after
the filing of the complaint or similar pleading – as to which the
additional filing fee therefore shall constitute a lien on the
judgment
 Two situations may arise. One is where the complaint or similar
pleading sets out a claim purely for money and damages and
there is no statement of the amounts being claimed. In this event
the rule is that the pleading will “not be accepted nor admitted, or
shall otherwise be expunged from the record.” In other words,
the complaint or pleading may be dismissed, or the claims as to
which amounts are unspecified may be expunged, although as
aforestated the Court may, on motion, permit amendment of the
complaint and payment of the fees provided the claim has not in
the meantime become time-barred.
 The other is where the pleading does specify the amount of
every claim, but the fees paid are insufficient; and here again, the
rule now is that the court may allow a reasonable time for the
payment of the prescribed fees, or the balance thereof, and upon
such payment, the defect is cured and the court may properly
take cognizance of the action, unless in the meantime
prescription has set in and consequently barred the right of
action.
left to the sound discretion of the court, it is the duty of the
parties claiming such damages to specify the amount sought on
the basis of which the court may make a proper determination,
and for the proper assessment of the appropriate docket fees.
The exception contemplated as to claims not specified or to
claims although specified are left for determination of the court is
limited only to any damages that may arise after the filing of the
complaint or similar pleading for then it will not be possible for the
claimant to specify nor speculate as to the amount thereof.
AUTOCORP GROUP and PETER Y. RODRIGUEZ v. INTRA
STRATA ASSURANCE CORPORATION (ISAC) and BUREAU OF
CUSTOMS G.R. No. 166662 June 27, 2008
(is under misjoinder of cause but the case does not cover that issue;
misjoinder of parties)
Facts:
ISAC issued bonds to guarantee compliance by petitioners with their
undertaking with the BOC to re-export the imported vehicles within
the given period and pay the taxes and/or duties due thereon. In
turn, petitioners agreed, as surety, to indemnify ISAC for the liability
the latter may incur on the said bonds
Petitioner Autocorp Group failed to re-export the items guaranteed
by the bonds and/or liquidate the entries or cancel the bonds, and
pay the taxes and duties pertaining to the said items despite
repeated demands made by the BOC, as well as by ISAC. By reason
thereof, the BOC considered the two bonds, with a total face value of
P1,034,649.00, forfeited
ISAC filed an action against petitioners to recover the sum of money.
ISAC impleaded the BOC "as a necessary party plaintiff in order that
the reward of money or judgment shall be adjudged unto the said
necessary plaintiff.
Issue: Whether or not BOC was improperly impleaded by ISAC.
Ruling: No. BOC is a necessary party in the case at bar, and should
not be dropped as a party to the present case.
Ratio:
 The misjoinder of parties does not warrant the dismissal of the
action. Section 11, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court explicitly states:
SEC. 11. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties.—Neither
misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is ground for
dismissal of an action. Parties may be dropped or added
by order of the court on motion of any party or on its own
initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as
are just. Any claim against a misjoined party may be
severed and proceeded with separately.
Consequently, the purported misjoinder of the BOC as a party
cannot result in the dismissal of the case.
 A necessary party is defined in Section 8, Rule 3 of the Rules of
Court as follows:
SEC. 8. Necessary party.—A necessary party is one who
is not indispensable but who ought to be joined as a party
if complete relief is to be accorded as to those already
parties, or for a complete determination or settlement of
the claim subject of the action.
The subject matter of the case is the liability of Autocorp Group
to the BOC, which ISAC is also bound to pay as the guarantor
who issued the bonds therefor. Clearly, there would be no
complete settlement of the subject matter of the case at bar – the
liability of Autocorp Group to the BOC – should Autocorp Group
be merely ordered to pay its obligations with the BOC to ISAC.
BOC is, therefore, a necessary party in the case at bar, and
should not be dropped as a party to the present case.
 It can only be conceded that there was an irregularity in the
manner the BOC was joined as a necessary party in the case. As
the BOC, through the Solicitor General, was not the one who
initiated the case, and neither was its consent obtained for the
filing of the same, it may be considered an unwilling co-plaintiff of
ISAC in said action. The proper way to implead the BOC as a
necessary party to Civil Case No. 95-1584 should have been in
accordance with Section 10, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, viz:
SEC. 10. Unwilling co-plaintiff.— If the consent of any
party who should be joined as plaintiff can not be obtained,
he may be made a defendant and the reason therefor shall
be stated in the complaint.