Case Digest: PROTON PILIPINAS CORPORATION et al. v. BANQUE NATIONALE DE PARIS

PROTON PILIPINAS CORPORATION et al. v. BANQUE NATIONALE DE PARIS

460 SCRA 260 (2005), THIRD DIVISION

Petitioner Proton Pilipinas Corporation (Proton) availed credit facilities of respondent Banque Nationale De Paris (BNP). In order to assure payment, co-petitioners Automotive Corporation, Asea One Corporation and Autocorp Group executed a corporate guarantee.

Proton failed to comply with his obligation to BNP. Thereafter, BNP demanded the payment of Proton‘s obligation to its co-petitioners pursuant to corporate guarantee. But the same remained unheeded. BNP then filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) against Proton et al. The clerk of court assessed the docket fee. Proton et al. filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the court cannot exercise jurisdiction over the case because BNP did not properly pay the docket fees. The RTC denied the motion to dismiss. On appeal, the Court of Appeals denied the motion of Proton et al. Hence this present petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the court does not acquire jurisdiction when there is an improper payment of docket fees

HELD:

The Court rules that it is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading, but the payment of the prescribed docket fee that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject-matter or nature of the action. Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by payment of the docket fee, the court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. It also stated that where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over a claim by the filing of the appropriate pleading and payment of the prescribed filing fee but, subsequently, the judgment awards a claim not specified in the pleading, or if specified the same has been left for determination by the court, the additional filing fee therefore shall constitute a lien on the judgment. It shall be the responsibility of the Clerk of Court or his duly authorized deputy to enforce said lien and assess and collect the additional fee.

In the case at bar, BNP merely relied on the assessment made by the clerk of court which turned out to be incorrect. Under the circumstances, the clerk of court has the responsibility of reassessing what respondent must pay within the prescriptive period, failing which the complaint merits dismissal.

Share this:

Leave a Reply