[G.R. No. 139325. April
12, 2005]
PRISCILLA C. MIJARES,
LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES, HILDA B. NARCISO, SR. MARIANI DIMARANAN, SFIC, and JOEL
C. LAMANGAN in their behalf and on behalf of the Class Plaintiffs in Class
Action No. MDL 840, United States District Court of Hawaii, petitioners,
vs. HON. SANTIAGO JAVIER RANADA, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch
137, Regional Trial Court, Makati City, and the ESTATE OF FERDINAND E. MARCOS,
through its court appointed legal representatives in Class Action MDL 840,
United States District Court of Hawaii, namely: Imelda R. Marcos and Ferdinand
Marcos, Jr., respondents.
Facts:
Invoking
the Alien Tort Act, petitioners Mijares, et al.*, all of whom suffered human
rights violations during the Marcos era, obtained a Final Judgment in their
favor against the Estate of the late Ferdinand Marcos amounting to roughly 1.9 Billion U.S. Dollars in compensatory and exemplary damages for tortuous violations of
international law in the US District Court of Hawaii. This Final Judgment was
affirmed by the US Court of Appeals.
As
a consequence, Petitioners filed a Complaint with the Regional Trial Court of Makati for the
enforcement of the Final Judgment, paying Php 410.00 as docket and filing fees based
on Rule 141, Section 7(b) where the value of the subject matter is incapable of
pecuniary estimation. The Estate of Marcos however, filed a MTD alleging the
non-payment of the correct filing fees. The Regional Trial Court of Makati dismissed the Complaint
stating that the subject matter was capable of pecuniary estimation as it
involved a judgment rendered by a foreign court ordering the payment of a
definite sum of money allowing for the easy determination of the value of the
foreign judgment. As such, the proper filing fee was 472 Million Philippine pesos, which Petitioners
had not paid.
Issue:
Whether
or not the amount paid by the Petitioners is the proper filing fee?
Ruling:
Yes,
but on a different basis—amount merely corresponds to the same amount required
for “other actions not involving property”. The Regional Trial Court of Makati erred in concluding that
the filing fee should be computed on the basis of the total sum claimed or the
stated value of the property in litigation. The Petitioner’s Complaint was
lodged against the Estate of Marcos but it is clearly based on a judgment, the
Final Judgment of the US District Court. However, the Petitioners erred in
stating that the Final Judgment is incapable of pecuniary estimation because it
is so capable. On this point, Petitioners state that this might lead to an
instance wherein a first level court (MTC, MeTC, etc.) would have jurisdiction
to enforce a foreign judgment. Under Batasang Pambansa 129, such courts are not vested
with such jurisdiction. Section 33 of Batasang Pambansa 129 refers to instances wherein the cause of
action or subject matter pertains to an assertion of rights over property or a
sum of money. But here, the subject matter is the foreign judgment itself. Section 16
of Batasang Pambansa 129 reveals that the complaint for enforcement of judgment even if
capable of pecuniary estimation would fall under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts.
Thus, the Complaint to enforce the US District Court judgment is one capable of
pecuniary estimations but at the same time, it is also an action based on
judgment against an estate, thus placing it beyond the ambit of Section 7(a) of Rule
141. What governs the proper computation of the filing fees over Complaints for
the enforcement of foreign judgments is Section7(b)(3), involving “other actions not
involving property.”
No comments:
Post a Comment