MANCHESTER DEV’T CORP V. CA, G.R. NO.

75919, MAY 7, 1987

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.