JUSTICE ROBERTO A. ABAD: A SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT IS LIKE ANY COMPLAINT AND THE RULE IS THAT THE FILING FEES DUE ON A COMPLAINT NEED TO BE PAID UPON ITS FILING.

In Do-ALL Metals Industries vs. Security Bank, the Supreme Court observed that what the plaintiffs failed to pay merely was the filing fees for their supplemental complaint.  Thus, the RTC acquired jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ action from the moment they filed their original complaint accompanied by the payment of the filing fees due on the same. In other words, the plaintiffs’ non-payment of the additional filing fees due on their additional claims did not divest the RTC of the jurisdiction it already had over the case (PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 358 Phil. 38, 62 (1998). x x x x x

However, as to the damages that plaintiffs claim under their supplemental complaint, their stand that the RTC committed no error in admitting the complaint even if they had not paid the filing fees due on it since such fees constituted a lien anyway on the judgment award is not correct.

The Supreme Court clarified that the after-judgment lien, which implies that payment depends on a successful execution of the judgment, applies to cases where the filing fees were incorrectly assessed or paid or where the court has discretion to fix the amount of the award. (Rules of Court, Rule 141, Section 2 (Fees in Lien). None of these circumstances obtain in the case.

Here, the supplemental complaint specified from the beginning the actual damages that the plaintiffs sought against the Bank. Still plaintiffs paid no filing fees on the same. And, while petitioners claim that they were willing to pay the additional fees, they gave no reason for their omission nor offered to pay the same. They merely said that they did not yet pay the fees because the RTC had not assessed them for it.

 But a supplemental complaint is like any complaint and the rule is that the filing fees due on a complaint need to be paid upon its filing. (Section 1 (Payment of Fees) in relation to Section 7 (Fees collectible by the Clerks of Regional Trial Courts for filing an action). The rules do not require the court to make special assessments in cases of supplemental complaints.

To aggravate plaintiffs’ omission, although the Bank brought up the question of their failure to pay additional filing fees in its motion for reconsideration, plaintiffs made no effort to make at least a late payment before the case could be submitted for decision, assuming of course that the prescription of their action had not then set it in. Clearly, plaintiffs have no excuse for their continuous failure to pay the fees they owed the court. Consequently, the trial court should have treated their Supplemental Complaint as not filed. x x x x

Plaintiffs of course point out that the Bank itself raised the issue of non-payment of additional filing fees only after the RTC had rendered its decision in the case. The implication is that the Bank should be deemed to have waived its objection to such omission. But it is not for a party to the case or even for the trial court to waive the payment of the additional filing fees due on the supplemental complaint. Only the Supreme Court can grant exemptions to the payment of the fees due the courts and these exemptions are embodied in its rules (DO-ALL METALS INDUSTRIES vs. SECURITY BANK CORPoration, G.R. No. 176339, January 10, 2011, ABAD, J.).