DO ALL METALS.docx

DO-ALL METALS INDUSTRIES, INC. V. SECURITY BANK CORPORATION Non-payment of additional filing fees due on additional claims do not divest the Court of the jurisdiction it already had over the case. However, after-judgment lien for said unpaid filing fees only applies to cases (1) where the filing fees were incorrectly assessed or paid or (2) where the court has discretion to fix the amount of the award. None of these are present in this case and award was in fact already specified. Also, ONLY the Supreme Court can grant exemptions to the payment of the fees due the courts. Parties or even the trial court cannot waive payment of fees. Facts: Spouses Lim took a loan from Security Bank. Unable to pay on time, the Lims assigned to the Bank their real properties including a building and lot. The Bank then offered to lease said property to the Lims through Do-All Metals Industries, Inc. (DMI) primarily for business and partly as Lim's residence. A 2-year lease contract was executed on the condition that the Bank has the right to pre-terminate the lease and should the Bank decide to sell the property, DMI shall have the right of first refusal. Months before the lease was up, the Bank notified DMI that it was pre-terminating it. While negotiations were ongoing, the Lims claim that they continued to use the property but the Bank posted security guards at the said place and the guards, on instructions of the Bank, padlocked the entrances and barred the Lims and DMI’s employees from entering, even pointing gun at one employee. Because of this, DMI was unable to close several projects with potential clients and Lims were unable to retrieve personal items left at the property. DMI and Lims (DMI) then filed a complaint with RTC Pasig for damages with prayer for the issuance of a TRO or preliminary injunction against the Bank. RTC directed the Bank to allow DMI to enter the building and get their machineries, equipment and personal things but DMI was unable to find their properties. In a supplemental complaint, DMI alleged that the Bank surreptitiously took such properties, resulting in additional actual damages of over P27M. RTC ruled in favor of DMI, ordering the Bank to pay the P27M actual damages, + moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. The Bank moved for reconsideration of the decision, questioning among other things the RTC’s authority to grant damages considering DMI’s failure to pay the filing fees on their supplemental complaint. The RTC denied the motion. On appeal, CA ruled in favor of the Bank and denied the subsequent MR, hence this petition. Issues: 1. W/N the RTC acquired JURISDICTION on the supplemental complaint against the Bank considering DMI and Lims' failure to pay the filing fees on the amounts of damages they claim in it; YES. 2. Whether or not the Bank is liable for the intimidation and harassment committed against DMI. YES. 3. W/N the Bank is LIABLE to DMI for the machineries, equipment, and other properties they allegedly lost after they were barred from the property. NO. Held: (1) YES. The RTC acquired jurisdiction over their action from the moment they filed the original complaint accompanied by the payment of the filing fees due on the same. Their 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. (2) YES. The Bank belittles the testimonies of the DMI’s witnesses for having been presented ex parte but the ex parte hearing, having been properly authorized, cannot be assailed as less credible. It was the Bank’s fault that it was unable to attend the hearing. It cannot profit from its lack of diligence. Employees of DMI testified regarding the Bank guards’ unmitigated use of their superior strength and firepower and such were never refuted. Police testified finding Lim locked in the building and being told by a Bank representative that they had instructions to prevent anyone from taking any property out of the premises. While the lease may have already lapsed, the Bank had no business harassing and intimidating the Lims and DMI employees.

(3) NO. DMI's stand is that the RTC correctly admitted the supplemental complaint even if they had not paid the filing fees due on it since such fees constituted a lien anyway on the judgment award. But this afterjudgment lien, which implies that payment depends on a successful execution of the judgment, applies to cases (1) where the filing fees were incorrectly assessed or paid or (2) where the court has discretion to fix the amount of the award. NONE of these circumstances are present in this case. Here, the supplemental complaint specified from the beginning the actual damages that DMI sought against the Bank. Still DMI paid no filing fees on the same and gave no reason for their omission nor offered to pay the same, merely saying 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. The rules DO NOT require the court to make special assessments in cases of supplemental complaints. Although the Bank brought up the question of their failure to pay additional filing fees in its motion for reconsideration, DMI made no effort to make at least a late payment before decision. Consequently, the trial court should have treated their Supplemental Complaint as not filed. DMI argues that the Bank raised the issue of non-payment of additional filing fees only after the RTC had rendered its decision, thus waiving its objection. 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. Court reinstated the RTC decision and ordered the bank to pay damages, but deleted the claim for the P27M actual damages in the supplemental complaint.