Document Text Contents
Page 2
Rule #1: payment of filing fees is jurisdictional in civil cases
Rule #2: how does the court determine filing fees?
You include interest, damages, attorney’s fees etc. – pay everything that you allege for
court fees but for jurisdictional purposes, just the principal claim
Rule #3: Sun Insurance - Filing fees must be paid within prescriptive period or
reglementary period (for appeals or compulsory counterclaims), or else it is deemed
prescribed
Rule #4: Alday v. FGU Insurance - Permissive counterclaims require docket fees
The claim does not arise from the principal action, but involves the same parties. This
could easily have been filed separately. Compulsory counterclaims do not require
docket fees .
In Korean Technologies case of 2009 – this is how you answer the question whether
compulsory counterclaims require filing fees
From nowhere, this case required that even compulsory counterclaims have docket
fees paid. Korean Technologies cited Rule 141.
But in practice, based on an SC Resolution, the collection of filing fees on compulsory
counterclaims is suspended. This has not been lifted yet.
Alday: Payment of filing fees for compulsory counterclaims is not required. But you
have to take note of Korean Technologies now
To sum it up, the counterclaim of Ramon is subject to payment of filing fees by virtue of
Rule 141 (law), Korean Technologies (case law) and an SC Resolution (administrative
issuances).
Suppose Ramon’s counterclaim for the unpaid balance is P310,000, what will happen to
his counterclaims if the court dismisses the complaint after holding a preliminary hearing
on Ramon’s affirmative defenses? (3%)
Answer:
According to the Rules of Court, within the time provided for in the rules, you must
signify to the court either
1. You choose to pursue in a separate case the filing of your counterclaim, or
2. You wish to resolve your counterclaim in the same case as the main complaint.
SEC. 6. Counterclaim.—A counterclaim is any claim which a defending party may have
against an opposing party. (6a)
SEC. 7. Compulsory counterclaim.—A compulsory counterclaim is one which, being
cognizable by the regular courts of justice, arises out of or is connected with the
transaction or occurrence constituting the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim
Page 9
As for Motions for judicial determination of probable cause, the case of “People of the
Philippines vs. Castillo et al”, G.R. No.1188, June 19, 2009 gives an instruction on this
point.
There are two kinds of determination of probable cause: executive and judicial. The
executive determination of probable cause is one made during preliminary investigation.
It is a function that properly pertains to the public prosecutor who is given a broad
discretion to determine whether probable cause exists and to charge those whom he
believes to have committed the crime as defined by law and thus should be held for
trial. Otherwise stated, such official has the quasi-judicial authority to determine whether
or not a criminal case must be filed in court. Whether or not that function has been
correctly discharged by the public prosecutor, i.e., whether or not he has made a
correct ascertainment of the existence of probable cause in a case, is a matter that the
trial court itself does not and may not be compelled to pass upon.
The judicial determination of probable cause, on the other hand, is one made by the
judge to ascertain whether a warrant of arrest should be issued against the accused.
The judge must satisfy himself that based on the evidence submitted there is necessity
for placing the accused under custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. If the
judge finds no probable cause, the judge cannot be forced to issue the arrest warrant.
Corollary to the principle that a judge cannot be compelled to issue a warrant of arrest if
he or she deems that there is no probable cause for doing so, the judge in turn should
not override the public prosecutor’s determination of probable cause to hold an accused
for trial on the ground that the evidence presented to substantiate the issuance of an
arrest warrant was insufficient. It must be stressed that in our criminal justice system,
the public prosecutor exercises a wide latitude of discretion in determining whether a
criminal case should be filed in court, and that courts must respect the exercise of such
discretion when the information filed against the person charged is valid on its face, and
that no manifest error or grave abuse of discretion can be imputed to the public
prosecutor.
Summing up, a judicial determination of probable cause is concerned with the matter of
whether the judge should issue a warrant of arrest against the accused or not. As to
whether there is probable cause for the filing of the case in court, that is the
responsibility, not of the judge, but of the prosecutor’s office. Defense lawyers should
now refrain from filing a “motion for judicial determination of probable cause” for three
reasons:
The judge is already duty-bound to determine whether there is probable cause for the
issuance of a warrant of arrest. He studies the records of the preliminary investigation
(complaint, counter-affidavit, affidavit of witnesses, documentary evidences, etc. He
then decides whether to issue a warrant of arrest or not. There is therefore no need for
a defense lawyer to file a “motion for judicial determination of probable cause”. By filing
such a motion, the defense lawyer disrespects or even insults the judge.
Page 10
As discussed above, the defense lawyer’s intention for filing this motion is actually to
shortcut the proceedings by asking the judge to rule whether the accused should be
held for trial or not, even without a full-blown trial. As the Supreme Court ruled in this
case, “whether or not that function has been correctly discharged by the public
prosecutor, i.e., whether or not he has made a correct ascertainment of the existence of
probable cause in a case, is a matter that the trial court itself does not and may not be
compelled to pass upon”.
(In one controversial case extensively covered by the media, the judge has already
issued a warrant of arrest and the accused has posted bail. But the judge re-set the
arraignment because the defense lawyer has filed a “motion for judicial determination of
probable cause”. I wonder if the defense lawyer and the judge are aware of the
Supreme Court ruling in the “People of the Philippines vs. Castillo et al” case.
If the defense lawyer thinks that the information filed against the accused is not valid on
its face and that there was manifst error or grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
public prosecutor, the proper remedy is to file a motion for re-investigation, not a
“motion for judicial determination of probable cause”.
X
Jose, Alberto and Romeo were charged with murder. Upon filing of the information, the
RTC judge issued the warrants for their arrest. Learning of the issuance of the warrants,
the three accused jointly filed a motion for reinvestigation and for the recall of the
warrants of arrest. On the date set for hearing of their motion, none of the accused
showed up in court for fear of being arrested. The RTC judge denied their motion
because the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the persons of the movants. Did the
RTC rule correctly? (4%)
Answer:
No. The RTC erred in denying the motion. Under the law, voluntary appearance is one
of the modes of acquiring jurisdiction over the … reinvestigation and for the recall of the
warrants of arrest is equivalent to voluntary appearance. Hence, when the accused filed
their motion, the court acquired jurisdiction over their person.
Basically, it just says the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused
when he/she submits motions, etc even if he’s not detained. But the exception is the
petition for admission to bail - the accused has to be held in detention in such case.
The voluntary appearance of the accused, whereby the court acquires jurisdiction over
his person, is accomplished either by his pleading to the merits (such as by filing a
motion to quash or other pleadings requiring the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction
thereover, appearing for arraignment, entering trial) or by filing bail.
XI
Rule #1: payment of filing fees is jurisdictional in civil cases
Rule #2: how does the court determine filing fees?
You include interest, damages, attorney’s fees etc. – pay everything that you allege for
court fees but for jurisdictional purposes, just the principal claim
Rule #3: Sun Insurance - Filing fees must be paid within prescriptive period or
reglementary period (for appeals or compulsory counterclaims), or else it is deemed
prescribed
Rule #4: Alday v. FGU Insurance - Permissive counterclaims require docket fees
The claim does not arise from the principal action, but involves the same parties. This
could easily have been filed separately. Compulsory counterclaims do not require
docket fees .
In Korean Technologies case of 2009 – this is how you answer the question whether
compulsory counterclaims require filing fees
From nowhere, this case required that even compulsory counterclaims have docket
fees paid. Korean Technologies cited Rule 141.
But in practice, based on an SC Resolution, the collection of filing fees on compulsory
counterclaims is suspended. This has not been lifted yet.
Alday: Payment of filing fees for compulsory counterclaims is not required. But you
have to take note of Korean Technologies now
To sum it up, the counterclaim of Ramon is subject to payment of filing fees by virtue of
Rule 141 (law), Korean Technologies (case law) and an SC Resolution (administrative
issuances).
Suppose Ramon’s counterclaim for the unpaid balance is P310,000, what will happen to
his counterclaims if the court dismisses the complaint after holding a preliminary hearing
on Ramon’s affirmative defenses? (3%)
Answer:
According to the Rules of Court, within the time provided for in the rules, you must
signify to the court either
1. You choose to pursue in a separate case the filing of your counterclaim, or
2. You wish to resolve your counterclaim in the same case as the main complaint.
SEC. 6. Counterclaim.—A counterclaim is any claim which a defending party may have
against an opposing party. (6a)
SEC. 7. Compulsory counterclaim.—A compulsory counterclaim is one which, being
cognizable by the regular courts of justice, arises out of or is connected with the
transaction or occurrence constituting the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim
Page 9
As for Motions for judicial determination of probable cause, the case of “People of the
Philippines vs. Castillo et al”, G.R. No.1188, June 19, 2009 gives an instruction on this
point.
There are two kinds of determination of probable cause: executive and judicial. The
executive determination of probable cause is one made during preliminary investigation.
It is a function that properly pertains to the public prosecutor who is given a broad
discretion to determine whether probable cause exists and to charge those whom he
believes to have committed the crime as defined by law and thus should be held for
trial. Otherwise stated, such official has the quasi-judicial authority to determine whether
or not a criminal case must be filed in court. Whether or not that function has been
correctly discharged by the public prosecutor, i.e., whether or not he has made a
correct ascertainment of the existence of probable cause in a case, is a matter that the
trial court itself does not and may not be compelled to pass upon.
The judicial determination of probable cause, on the other hand, is one made by the
judge to ascertain whether a warrant of arrest should be issued against the accused.
The judge must satisfy himself that based on the evidence submitted there is necessity
for placing the accused under custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. If the
judge finds no probable cause, the judge cannot be forced to issue the arrest warrant.
Corollary to the principle that a judge cannot be compelled to issue a warrant of arrest if
he or she deems that there is no probable cause for doing so, the judge in turn should
not override the public prosecutor’s determination of probable cause to hold an accused
for trial on the ground that the evidence presented to substantiate the issuance of an
arrest warrant was insufficient. It must be stressed that in our criminal justice system,
the public prosecutor exercises a wide latitude of discretion in determining whether a
criminal case should be filed in court, and that courts must respect the exercise of such
discretion when the information filed against the person charged is valid on its face, and
that no manifest error or grave abuse of discretion can be imputed to the public
prosecutor.
Summing up, a judicial determination of probable cause is concerned with the matter of
whether the judge should issue a warrant of arrest against the accused or not. As to
whether there is probable cause for the filing of the case in court, that is the
responsibility, not of the judge, but of the prosecutor’s office. Defense lawyers should
now refrain from filing a “motion for judicial determination of probable cause” for three
reasons:
The judge is already duty-bound to determine whether there is probable cause for the
issuance of a warrant of arrest. He studies the records of the preliminary investigation
(complaint, counter-affidavit, affidavit of witnesses, documentary evidences, etc. He
then decides whether to issue a warrant of arrest or not. There is therefore no need for
a defense lawyer to file a “motion for judicial determination of probable cause”. By filing
such a motion, the defense lawyer disrespects or even insults the judge.
Page 10
As discussed above, the defense lawyer’s intention for filing this motion is actually to
shortcut the proceedings by asking the judge to rule whether the accused should be
held for trial or not, even without a full-blown trial. As the Supreme Court ruled in this
case, “whether or not that function has been correctly discharged by the public
prosecutor, i.e., whether or not he has made a correct ascertainment of the existence of
probable cause in a case, is a matter that the trial court itself does not and may not be
compelled to pass upon”.
(In one controversial case extensively covered by the media, the judge has already
issued a warrant of arrest and the accused has posted bail. But the judge re-set the
arraignment because the defense lawyer has filed a “motion for judicial determination of
probable cause”. I wonder if the defense lawyer and the judge are aware of the
Supreme Court ruling in the “People of the Philippines vs. Castillo et al” case.
If the defense lawyer thinks that the information filed against the accused is not valid on
its face and that there was manifst error or grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
public prosecutor, the proper remedy is to file a motion for re-investigation, not a
“motion for judicial determination of probable cause”.
X
Jose, Alberto and Romeo were charged with murder. Upon filing of the information, the
RTC judge issued the warrants for their arrest. Learning of the issuance of the warrants,
the three accused jointly filed a motion for reinvestigation and for the recall of the
warrants of arrest. On the date set for hearing of their motion, none of the accused
showed up in court for fear of being arrested. The RTC judge denied their motion
because the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the persons of the movants. Did the
RTC rule correctly? (4%)
Answer:
No. The RTC erred in denying the motion. Under the law, voluntary appearance is one
of the modes of acquiring jurisdiction over the … reinvestigation and for the recall of the
warrants of arrest is equivalent to voluntary appearance. Hence, when the accused filed
their motion, the court acquired jurisdiction over their person.
Basically, it just says the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused
when he/she submits motions, etc even if he’s not detained. But the exception is the
petition for admission to bail - the accused has to be held in detention in such case.
The voluntary appearance of the accused, whereby the court acquires jurisdiction over
his person, is accomplished either by his pleading to the merits (such as by filing a
motion to quash or other pleadings requiring the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction
thereover, appearing for arraignment, entering trial) or by filing bail.
XI
