This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-09-02 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| However, a motion for the enforcement of the lien is in the nature of an action commenced by a lawyer against his clients for attorney's fees.[15] As in every action for a sum of money, the attorney-movant must first pay the prescribed docket fees before the trial court can acquire jurisdiction to order the payment of attorney's fees. | |||||
|
2011-06-22 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Even then, the question of the Manila RTC's jurisdiction over the case is tied up with R-II Builder's payment of the correct docket fees which should be paid in full upon the filing of the pleading or other application which initiates an action or proceeding. [4] While it is, consequently, true that jurisdiction, once acquired, cannot be easily ousted, [5] it is equally settled that a court acquires jurisdiction over a case only upon the payment of the prescribed filing and docket fees. [6] Already implicit from the filing of the complaint in the City of Manila where the realties comprising the Asset Pool are located, the fact that the case is a real action is evident from the allegations of R-II Builders' original Complaint, Amended and Supplemental Complaint and Second Amended Complaint which not only sought the nullification of the DAC in favor of HGC but, more importantly, prayed for the transfer of possession of and/or control of the properties in the Asset Pool. Its current protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, no less than R-II Builders - in its opposition to HGC's motion to dismiss - admitted that the case is a real action as it affects title to or possession of real property or an interest therein. [7] Having only paid docket fees corresponding to an action where the subject matter is incapable of pecuniary estimation, R-II Builders cannot expediently claim that jurisdiction over the case had already attached. | |||||
|
2011-03-09 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Jurisdiction is defined as the authority to hear and determine a cause or the right to act in a case.[37] In addition to being conferred by the Constitution and the law,[38] the rule is settled that a court's jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the relevant allegations in the complaint,[39] the law in effect when the action is filed,[40] and the character of the relief sought irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims asserted.[41] Consistent with Section 1, Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of Court which provides that the prescribed fees shall be paid in full "upon the filing of the pleading or other application which initiates an action or proceeding", the well-entrenched rule is to the effect that a court acquires jurisdiction over a case only upon the payment of the prescribed filing and docket fees.[42] | |||||
|
2006-05-02 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Lacson v. Reyes,[33] cited by the appellate court, involved an executor who also happened to be the lawyer for the heirs who had filed the petition for probate. For that reason, that case is not squarely in point to the case at bar. It was pronounced therein that the administrator or executor of the estate cannot charge professional fees for legal services against the same estate, as explicitly provided under Section 7, Rule 85 of the Rules of Court of 1985.[34] No such rule exists barring direct recovery of professional legal fees from the estate by the lawyer who is not the executor or administrator of the said estate. The limitations on such direct recovery are nonetheless established by jurisprudence, as evinced by the rulings in Escueta and Occeña. | |||||