Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 32 views

    Manchester Dev. V CA

    Uploaded by

    maria grace
    Complaint

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Manchester Dev. V CA

    Uploaded by

    maria grace
    32 views1 page
    Complaint

    Original Title

    Manchester Dev. v CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Complaint

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    32 views1 page

    Manchester Dev. V CA

    Uploaded by

    maria grace
    Complaint

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    MANCHESTER DEV.

    v CA

    FACTS: A complaint for specific performance was filed by Manchester Development


    Corporation against City Land Development Corporation to compel the latter to execute a
    deed of sale in favor Manchester. Manchester also alleged that City Land forfeited the
    former’s tender of payment for a certain transaction thereby causing damages to
    Manchester amounting to P78,750,000.00. This amount was alleged in the BODY of their
    Complaint but it was not reiterated in the PRAYER of same complaint. Manchester paid
    a docket fee of P410.00 only. Said docket fee is premised on the allegation of Manchester
    that their action is primarily for specific performance hence it is incapable of pecuniary
    estimation. The court ruled that there is an under assessment of docket fees hence it
    ordered Manchester to amend its complaint. Manchester complied but what it did was to
    lower the amount of claim for damages to P10M. Said amount was however again not
    stated in the PRAYER.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the amended complaint should be admitted.

    HELD: No. The docket fee, its computation, should be based on the original complaint. A
    case is deemed filed only upon payment of the appropriate docket fee regardless of the
    actual date of filing in court. Here, since the proper docket fee was not paid for the
    original complaint, it’s as if there is no complaint to speak of. As a consequence, there is
    no original complaint duly filed which can be amended. So, any subsequent proceeding
    taken in consideration of the amended complaint is void.

    Manchester’s defense that this case is primarily an action for specific performance is not
    merited. The Supreme Court ruled that based on the allegations and the prayer of the
    complaint, this case is an action for damages and for specific performance. Hence, it is
    capable of pecuniary estimation.

    Further, the amount for damages in the original complaint was already provided in the
    body of the complaint. Its omission in the PRAYER clearly constitutes an attempt to
    evade the payment of the proper filing fees. To stop the happenstance of similar
    irregularities in the future, the Supreme Court ruled that from this case on, all complaints,
    petitions, answers and other similar pleadings should specify the amount of damages
    being prayed for not only in the body of the pleading but also in the prayer, and said
    damages shall be considered in the assessment of the filing fees in any case. Any
    pleading that fails to comply with this requirement shall not bib accepted nor admitted, or
    shall otherwise be expunged from the record.

    You might also like