Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HEIRS OF BERTULDO HINOG: BERTULDO HINOG II v. ACHILLES MELICOR

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 181842 2010-02-05	METROPOLITAN BANK v. BERNARDITA H. PEREZ CARPIO MORALES, J.
Plainly, while the payment of prescribed docket fee is a jurisdictional requirement, even its non-payment at the time of filing does not automatically cause the dismissal of the case, as long as the fee is paid within the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period, more so when the party involved demonstrates a willingness to abide by the rules prescribing such payment. Thus, when insufficient filing fees were initially paid by the plaintiffs and there was no intention to defraud the government, the Manchester rule does not apply.[11] (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
	GR No. 166802 2008-07-04	SPS. ALBERTO GUTIERREZ v. SPS. ROGELIO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As to the shortage of payment of the docketing fee, the same cannot be used as a ground for dismissing the petition. In Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. v. Asuncion,[44] the Court held that the strict regulations set in Manchester Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals[45] that a court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon payment of the prescribed docket fees does not apply where the party does not deliberately intend to defraud the court in payment of docket fees, and manifests its willingness to abide by the rules by paying additional docket fees when required by the court. The liberal doctrine in Sun Insurance has been repeatedly reiterated in Heirs of Bertuldo Hinog v. Melicor,[46] Proton Pilipinas Corporation v. Banque Nationale de Paris[47] and Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation v. Alonzo-Legasto,[48] and continues to be the controlling doctrine. Since the deficiency in payment was not at all intentional, as there was a willingness to comply with the rules when Spouses Gutierrez remitted the deficiency by postal money order in their Motion for Reconsideration, the Sun Insurance doctrine applies.
	GR NO. 154018 2007-04-03	ELIZABETH PEÑOSO v. MACROSMAN DONA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In Heirs of Bertuldo Hinog v. Melicor,[19] the Court held:Time and again, the Court has held that the Manchester rule has been modified in Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. (SIOL) vs. Asuncion which defined the following guidelines involving the payment of docket fees:
	GR NO. 167620 2007-04-03	CAROLINA B. VILLENA v. ROMEO Z. RUPISAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In Go v. Tong,[40] reiterated in Heirs of Bertuldo Hinog v. Melicor,[41] it was held that while the payment of the prescribed docket fee is a jurisdictional requirement, even its nonpayment at the time of filing does not automatically cause the dismissal of the case, as long as the fee is paid within the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period; more so when the party involved demonstrates a willingness to abide by the rules prescribing such payment.[42]
	GR NO. 154132 2006-08-31	HIYAS SAVINGS v. EDMUNDO T. ACUÑA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
At the outset, the Court notes that the instant Petition for Certiorari should have been filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) and not with this Court pursuant to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. Reiterating the established policy for the strict observance of this doctrine, this Court held in Heirs of Bertuldo Hinog v. Melicor[16] that:Although the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Courts have concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction, such concurrence does not give the petitioner unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum. As we stated in People v. Cuaresma:
	GR NO. 141393 2006-04-19	CATHERINE A. YEE v. ESTRELLITA P. BERNABE AZCUNA, J.
Furthermore, such a petition should be filed with the Court of Appeals and not with this Court, following the rule on the hierarchy of courts. As a matter of policy, direct resort to this Court will not be entertained unless the redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate lower courts, and exceptional and compelling circumstances, such as in cases involving national interest and those of serious implications, justify the availment of the extraordinary remedy of the writ of certiorari, calling for the exercise of its primary jurisdiction.[20]
	GR NO. 169108 2006-04-18	INTERCONTINENTAL BROADCASTING CORPORATION v. ROSE MARIE ALONZO LEGASTO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The ruling in Sun Insurance Office was echoed in the 2005 case of Heirs of Bertuldo Hinog v. Hon. Achilles Melicor[17]
	GR NO. 151242 2005-06-15	PROTON PILIPINAS CORPORATION v. BANQUE NATIONALE DE PARIS CARPIO MORALES, J.
The ruling in Sun Insurance Office was echoed in the 2005 case of Heirs of Bertuldo Hinog v. Hon. Achilles Melicor:[41]