Jul 18, 2012

MRCA v. CA Digest


Facts: The Petitioner MRCA Inc., filed a complaint against private respondents spouses (who were defendants in said civil case). Said case was dismissed by the trial court due to the non-payment of proper filing fees when petitioner failed to include include in the complain the amount of moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney's fees and litigation expenses sought to be recovered.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed said ruling, hence the petitioner comes to SC by petition for review. Petitioner contends that the Manchester ruling does not apply to the case since said court decision was not published in the Official Gazette. It should be noted that petitioner filed said complaint ten months after the promulgation of the Manchester ruling.
Issue: w/n court rulings need to be published in the Official Gazette order to be effective
HELD: NO.
Publication in the Official Gazette is not a prerequisite for the effectivity of a court ruling even if it lays down a new rule or procedure. It is a well-established doctrine that the procedure of the court may be changed at any time and become effective at once so long as it does not affect or change vested rights. (Aguillon v Dir. of Lands)
As such, the court granted the petition and held that the Manchester ruling should apply to the case of the petitioner though it was modified by the Sun Insurance case where the court allowed the payment of docket fees within a reasonable period but not beyond the reglamentary period. Petitioner was allowed to amend the complaint and specify therein the amount of damages it seeks from defendant and pay the proper filing fees

No comments:

Post a Comment