FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 126749. August 21, 1997.]

ERIBERTO M. SUSON, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF

APPEALS and DAVID S. ODILAO, JR., respondents.

Gerardo D. Lariosa for petitioner.

Almario & Gonzales Law Offices for private respondent.

SYNOPSIS

This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of

Court filed by herein petitioner questioning the decision of respondent Court of
Appeals affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City in
granting the filing of private respondent's civil suit for damages even without
the payment of the proper docket fees. It appears therein, that prior to the
filing of the questioned case in the RTC of Cebu, private respondent already
filed a civil suit in the RTC of San Juan, Leyte and paid the corresponding docket
fees but subsequently dismissed by said court due to improper venue.
Respondent re-filed the said case in the RTC of Cebu without paying the
corresponding docket fees. Petitioner opposed moved for the dismissal but the
RTC of Cebu denied the move and granting the filing due to the letter issued by
Supreme Court Deputy Court Administrator Bernardo P. Abesamis allowing the
re-filing upon the proper presentation of the proof of payment made in the RTC
of San Juan, Leyte. Petitioner filed an appeal to the Court of Appeals, but
respondent court agreed with the trial court's decision. The issue is whether a
party litigant, whose complaint has been subsequently dismissed by an RTC
due to improper venue, can seek authorization from the Supreme Court thru
Deputy Court Administrator to re-file his complaint without paying the
corresponding docket fees.
The Supreme Court ruled that Deputy Court Administrator committed an
error when he stated in his letter that private respondent's counsel could re-file
the complaint in the RTC Cebu City and present the official receipts
corresponding to the filing fees paid in the RTC of San Jose, Southern Leyte. The
OCA has no power or authority to exempt any party not otherwise exempt
under the law or under the Rules of Court in the payment of the prescribed
docket fees. To exempt private respondent Odilao from paying the prescribed
filing fees would not only be in derogation of this principle but also of the
general rule in pleadings, practice and procedure that the mistake of counsel
binds his client. DaEATc

SYLLABUS

1. REMEDIAL LAW; ACTIONS; FILING FEES; PAYMENT THEREOF,

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 MANDATORY; PURPOSE. — Filing fees are intended to take care of court
expenses in the handling of cases in terms of cost of supplies, use of
equipment, salaries and fringe benefits of personnel, etc. computed as to man
hours used in handling each case. The payment of said fees, therefore, cannot
be made dependent on the result of the action taken without entailing
tremendous losses to the government and to the judiciary in particular.
(Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp. v. CA, 171 SCRA 674.)
2. ID.; JURISDICTION; A COURT ACQUIRES JURISDICTION OVER A CASE
ONLY UPON PAYMENT OF THE PRESCRIBED DOCKET FEE. — In the cases of Lee
v. Republic (10 SCRA 65), Malimit v. Degamo (12 SCRA 450) and Magaspi v.
Ramolete (115 SCRA 193), we ruled that a case is deemed filed only upon
payment of the docket fee regardless of the actual date of filing of the case in
court. In 1987, in Manchester Development Corporation v. CA (149 SCRA 564)
we further refined the principle, as we ruled, that "a court acquires jurisdiction
over any case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fee", and in
order to curb the unethical practice of misleading the docket clerk in the
assessment of the correct filing fee, we laid down the rule that "henceforth 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."

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; RULE RELAXED; PARTY MAY SUBSEQUENTLY BE

GRANTED, ON MOTION, A REASONABLE TIME TO PAY THE REQUISITE FILING
FEE. — Two (2) years later, Sun Insurance Office Ltd. v. Hon. Maximiano
Asuncion (170 SCRA 274) affirmed the basic principle laid down in Manchester
but "reduced its stringency somewhat by providing that only those claims as to
which the amounts were not specified would be refused acceptance or
expunged and that, in any case, the defect was not necessarily fatal or
irremediable as the plaintiff could, on motion, be granted a reasonable time
within which to amend his complaint and pay the requisite filing fees, unless in
the meantime, the period of limitation of the right of action was completed."
From the Court's pronouncements in Sun Insurance, it can be argued that while
payment of the prescribed docket fee is a jurisdictional requirement, its non-
payment does not automatically cause the dismissal of the case if the non-
payment is not beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.
4. ID.; ACTIONS; MOTION TO DISMISS; IMPROPER VENUE; PLAINTIFF
WHOSE COMPLAINT WAS DISMISSED DUE TO IMPROPER VENUE CAN STILL
REFILE COMPLAINT; PAYMENT OF PRESCRIBED DOCKET FEE THEREON,
JURISDICTIONAL. — As a remedial measure, the plaintiff whose complaint was
dismissed due to improper venue can still file another complaint, but this time
in the court of proper venue. Note, however, that the dismissal of the complaint
filed in the court of improper venue did not stop the running of the prescriptive
period within which to file his complaint in the court of proper venue.
Theoretically, the plaintiff may decide to file a complaint containing
substantially the same allegations and prayer as the previously dismissed
complaint, or he may decide to amend the same and pray for a different relief.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 In this case, the principle remains unchanged, that is, the court (of proper
venue) will only acquire jurisdiction over the case only upon the payment of the
prescribed docket fee thereon.
5. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS; FREE ACCESS TO COURTS
AND QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIES; IMPLEMENTED BY EXEMPTING PAUPER-LITIGANTS
FROM PAYMENT OF COURT FEES. — Article III, Sec. 11 of the 1987 Constitution
states that "Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate
legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty." It is
for this reason that under Rule 141, Sec. 16 of the Rules of Court, pauper-
litigants are exempted from the payment of court fees, which includes the filing
fee in instituting a complaint. Nonetheless, the rule provides that the legal fees
shall be a lien on the monetary or property judgment rendered in favor of the
pauper-litigant.
6. ID.; SUPREME COURT; OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR;
DEPUTY COURT ADMINISTRATOR; WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO EXEMPT ANY PARTY
NOT OTHERWISE EXEMPT IN THE PAYMENT OF DOCKET FEES. — As early as 26
February 1991, the Court en banc had issued a resolution containing guidelines
on the duties and functions of the Office of the Court Administrator. As a
general rule, the Court acts through the Court Administrator in the exercise of
its administrative functions. The resolution clearly classified the work attended
to by the OCA, either on its responsibility or with the approval of the Court en
banc, into the following categories: 1. Judicial discipline of judges and
personnel. 2. Administrative interventions in case of management of lower
courts, including designation of Executive Judges and detail of judges to other
courts. 3. Preparation of draft circulars. 4. Public assistance and information. 5.
Personnel administration and 6. Liaison with the Executive and Legislative
Departments. From the foregoing enumeration, it is clear that the OCA has
neither the power nor the authority to exempt any party not otherwise exempt
under the law or under the Rules of Court in the payment of the prescribed
docket fees. The principles laid down by this Court in Manchester and in Sun
Insurance were formulated en banc, no less than the Constitution mandates
that no doctrine or principle laid down by the court in a decision en banc may
be modified or reversed except by the court sitting en banc. To now exempt or
otherwise authorize private respondent Odilao not to pay the prescribed filing
fees would not only be in derogation of this principle but also of the general
rule in pleadings, practice and procedure that the mistake of counsel binds his
client. In fine, the Court will not allow the Office of the Court Administrator to be
unduly burdened in futuro with similar letter-requests from litigants for an
exemption in the payment of the prescribed docket fees or in private
respondent's language, for an authorization to apply the docket fees paid in a
dismissed case to cover the docket fees once the case is re-filed in the court of
proper venue. In other words, the Court Administrator cannot grant any relief or
remedial measure which is beyond his powers and functions. It may be
noteworthy to mention here that even in the Supreme Court, there are
numerous instances when a litigant has had to re-file a petition previously
dismissed by the Court due to a technicality (violation of a pertinent Circular),
and in these instances, the litigant is required to pay the prescribed docket fee
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 and not apply to the re-filed case the docket fees paid in the earlier dismissed
case.
7. REMEDIAL LAW; ACTIONS; FILING FEES; SUBSEQUENT PAYMENT
THEREOF ALLOWED WHERE PARTY DID NOT INTEND TO EVADE PAYMENT
AFTER FIRST CASE WAS DISMISSED FOR WRONG VENUE. — Coming back to the
case at bar, and pursuant to the rules laid down by this Court in Sun Insurance,
we hold that under the peculiar circumstances of this case private respondent
did not really intend to evade the payment of the prescribed docket fee. His
counsel simply strayed away from the rules to explore the possibility of an
extra legal remedy. Since his case has already been docketed as Civil Case No.
16336 in the RTC Branch 6 Cebu City, the procedural remedy of paying the
prescribed docket fees is still available to him provided, of course, that the
applicable prescriptive or reglementary period has not yet set in. WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby SET ASIDE.
The Regional Trial Court (Branch 6) Cebu City is hereby ordered to require
private respondent to pay the prescribed docket fees in Civil Case No. 16336 as
a condition precedent for further hearing the case, after ascertaining at the
earliest date practicable from the records that private respondent's complaint
has not been barred by prescription at the time it was filed in said court.
aACEID

DECISION

PADILLA, J : p

The issue in this case is whether or not a party litigant, whose complaint
has been dismissed by a Regional Trial Court due to improper venue, can seek
an authorization from the Supreme Court thru the Deputy Court Administrator
to re-file his complaint in the court of proper venue without payment of the
prescribed docket fee.

This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of

Court to review the decision 1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 37311
which dismissed petitioner's petition for certiorari assailing the order of the
Regional Trial Court (Branch 6) Cebu City which denied his motion to dismiss
for lack of merit. cdll

The facts are not in dispute.

On 15 November 1993, private respondent Odilao filed a P5.15 million

civil suit for damages against petitioner Suson before the Regional Trial Court
of San Juan (Branch 26), Southern Leyte. Private respondent claimed that
petitioner made false and groundless accusations of graft and corruption
against him before the Office of the Ombudsman, and thereafter caused their
publication in a Cebu-based local daily under the headline "ODILAO SUED FOR
GRAFT." According to private respondent, Suson's machinations had cast
dishonor, discredit and contempt upon his person which besmirched his
reputation and caused him to suffer moral shock and social humiliation.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Private respondent paid the sum of P25,600.00 in docket fees to the
Regional Trial Court (Branch 26) of Southern Leyte covered by Official Receipts
Nos. 1937304 in the amount of P15,450.00 and 1030112 in the amount of
P10,150.00, both dated 15 November 1993. 2

On 17 December 1993, petitioner Suson filed a motion to dismiss the

complaint of private respondent Odilao on the ground of improper venue,
alleging therein that Odilao resides in Talisay, Cebu and not in Himonganan,
Southern Leyte. Finding merit in petitioner's arguments in his motion to
dismiss, the lower court (RTC Southern Leyte) granted petitioner's aforesaid
motion on 24 May 1994. 3

Thereafter, private respondent went to the Regional Trial Court of Cebu

City to re-file the same complaint (except the statement of his actual
residence) that was dismissed by the Regional Trial Court (Branch 26) of
Southern Leyte. Private respondent avers that upon showing the official
receipts as proof of payment of the docket fees in the Regional Trial Court of
Southern Leyte (Branch 26) to the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of
Cebu City (Branch 6), the latter advised his counsel to file a formal request with
this Court, thru the Court Administrator, for an "authority" to apply the payment
for docket fees previously made to the Regional Trial Court (Branch 26),
Southern Leyte to the docket fees to be paid to the Regional Trial Court Cebu
City (Branch 6).

On 20 June 1994, private respondent, thru counsel, wrote a letter

addressed to the SC Court Administrator, requesting for an authorization to
consider the filing fees previously paid to the Regional Trial Court (Branch 26)
of San Juan, Southern Leyte as payment for the filing fees to be paid in the
Regional Trial Court of Cebu City (Branch 6) where the case was to be re-filed. 4

On 12 July 1994, Supreme Court Deputy Court Administrator Bernardo P.

Abesamis sent the following reply to private respondent's counsel:
"12 July 1994

Atty. Fidel C. Gonzales

Gonzales Law Office
154 V. Urgello St.
Cebu City
Dear Atty. Gonzales:

In connection with your letter of 20 June 1994 relative to Civil Case No.
R-417, please be informed that you can re(-)file the case at RTC Cebu
City and present the official receipt corresponding to the filing fees
paid at RTC, Branch 26 San Juan, Southern Leyte.
Very truly yours,

BERNARDO P. ABESAMIS" 5
Deputy Court Administrator

Thereafter, private respondent presented the letter-reply of Deputy Court

Administrator Abesamis to the clerk of court of the RTC (Branch 6) of Cebu City
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 upon re-filing his complaint. On the basis of the aforesaid letter-reply, the clerk
of court docketed private respondent's complaint as Civil Case CEB-16336
without requiring private respondent to pay anew the prescribed docket fees.

On 13 September 1994, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss Civil Case No.

16336 on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and lack of cause of action. Petitioner
argued that private respondent "did not pay (even) a single centavo of the
P25,000.00 filing fee; hence, the court (RTC of Cebu City, Branch 6) did not
acquire jurisdiction over the case."

On 16 September 1994, the RTC of Cebu City (Branch 6), presided over by
Judge Loreto D. de la Victoria, issued an order denying petitioner's motion to
dismiss. The court held that:
". . . When said plaintiff re(-)filed the same case with this Court,
he asked permission from the Supreme Court , through the Court
Administrator, for authority to apply the filing fees paid by him
(plaintiff) in the Regional Trial Court of San Juan, Southern Leyte, for
the filing fees in the instant case. Said request was granted by the
Court Administrator. The validity of the authority given by the Deputy
Administrator regarding the application of the filing fees in this case
can not be questioned before this forum. Indeed the Court finds it to be
in keeping with justice and equity and the spirit of liberality in
construing the Rules. In fact there is no prohibition in that direction. It
should be stated here that P25,000.00 filing fee paid by the plaintiff in
the Regional Trial Court of San Juan, Southern Leyte, is no picayune
amount for one to do away with, and sense of fairness demands that
plaintiff be allowed to apply the same in the filing of this case." 6
(emphasis supplied)

As mentioned earlier, petitioner elevated Judge de la Victoria's order for

review on certiorari to the Court of Appeals which agreed with the trial court's
dispositions. The Court of Appeals ratiocinated that:
"To require respondent Odilao to pay anew the docket fee of
P25,600 in its totality that he has already paid when he filed the case
that was earlier dismissed on the ground of improper venue, for him to
re-file the same case in the proper court is to unduly exact from him a
premium on his constitutional right to free access to the courts for
redress of a wrong (Section 11, Article III, 1987 Constitution; See Tan v.
Court of Appeals, 131 SCRA 397, 404). The real issue here is not
whether the Deputy Court Administrator is empowered to allow the
filing of a case in court without paying the required docket fee. It is
whether respondent Odilao may re-file in another Court the case that
was dismissed on the ground of improper venue without having to pay
again the docket fee of P25,600 that he has paid in the earlier case.
Said issue is resolved in the affirmative in favor of respondent Odilao."
7

In his present petition, petitioner contends that "to relieve Odilao from
paying the docket fee in the Cebu Court by just presenting the receipts issued
by the Leyte Court would be tantamount to a withdrawal of the docket fee paid
to the Leyte Court." In legal contemplation, the Leyte Court had acquired
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 jurisdiction over Civil Case No. P-417 upon the payment of the prescribed
docket fee(s) and its order dismissing the case due to improper venue was a
final disposition of the case pursuant to the exercise of said jurisdiction.
Petitioner further contends that the case later filed in the Regional Trial
Court of Cebu City (Branch 6) by private respondent is "a distinct and separate
case from that of the Leyte court as it has a new docket number (CEB-16336)
although the allegations therein are entirely the same as Civil Case No. P-417
filed in the RTC of Southern Leyte (Branch 26)."

In his comment, private respondent Odilao contends that "it is incorrect

for petitioner to insist that Odilao failed to pay the required filing fees." He
(Odilao) was not granted an "exemption" from the payment of filing fees by
Deputy Court Administrator Abesamis but merely an authority to apply the
filing fees he paid in Civil Case No. P-417 filed in RTC Southern Leyte (Branch
26) as "payment for filing fees of the same case" re-filed in the RTC of Cebu
(Branch 6).
In Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp. v. CA, 8 we had occasion to rule that:
"Filing fees are intended to take care of court expenses in the
handling of cases in terms of cost of supplies, use of equipment,
salaries and fringe benefits of personnel, etc. computed as to man
hours used in handling each case. The payment of said fees therefore
cannot be made dependent on the result of the action taken without
entailing tremendous losses to the government and to the judiciary in
particular." cdta

In the cases of Lee v. Republic (10 SCRA 65), Malimit v. Degamo (12 SCRA
450) and Magaspi v. Ramolete (115 SCRA 193), we ruled that a case is deemed
filed only upon payment of the docket fee regardless of the actual date of filing
of the case in court. In 1987, in Manchester Development Corporation v. CA
(149 SCRA 564) we further refined the principle, as we ruled, that "a court
acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the prescribed
docket fee", and in order to curb the unethical practice of misleading the docket
clerk in the assessment of the correct filing fee, we laid down the rule that
"henceforth 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." Two (2) years later, Sun
Insurance Office Ltd. v. Hon. Maximiano Asuncion 9 affirmed the basic principle
laid down in Manchester but ''reduced its stringency somewhat by providing
that only those claims as to which the amounts were not specified would be
refused acceptance or expunged and that, in any case, the defect was not
necessarily fatal or irremediable as the plaintiff could, on motion, be granted a
reasonable time within which to amend his complaint and pay the requisite
filing fees, unless in the meantime, the period of limitation of the right of action
was completed." 10 In that case, the Court en banc laid down the following
rules:
"1. It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 initiatory pleading, but the payment of the prescribed docket fee,
that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject-matter or
nature of the action. Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is
not accompanied by payment of the docket fee, the court may
allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in no case
beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.
"2. The same rule applies to permissive counterclaims, third-party
claims and similar pleadings, which shall not be considered filed
until and unless the filing fee prescribed therefor is paid. The
court may also allow payment of said fee within a reasonable
time but also in no case beyond its applicable prescriptive or
reglementary period.
"3. Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over a claim by the
filing of the appropriate pleading and payment of the prescribed
filing fee but, subsequently, the judgment awards a claim not
specified in the pleading, or if specified the same has been left
for determination by the court, the additional filing fee therefor
shall constitute a lien on the judgment. It shall be the
responsibility of the Clerk of Court or his duly authorized deputy
to enforce said lien and assess and collect the additional fee."

It should be stressed, however, that the aforementioned cases all

involved under-assessment of the docket fees and from the Court's
pronouncements in Sun Insurance, it can be argued that while payment of the
prescribed docket fee is a jurisdictional requirement, its non-payment does not
automatically cause the dismissal of the case if the non-payment is not beyond
the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.
In the case at bar, in the strict sense, private respondent's complaint
cannot be deemed to have been "re-filed" in the RTC of Cebu City (Branch 6)
because it was not originally filed in the same court but in the RTC of Southern
Leyte (Branch 26). Thus, when private respondent's complaint was docketed as
Civil Case No. CEB-16336 by the clerk of court of the RTC Cebu City (Branch 6),
it became an entirely separate case from Civil Case No. P-417 that was
dismissed by the RTC of Leyte due to improper venue. As far as Civil Case No.
P-417 is concerned, while undoubtedly the order of dismissal is not an
adjudication on the merits of the case, the order, nevertheless, is a final order.
This means that when private respondent did not appeal therefrom, the order
became final and executory for all legal intents and purposes. From a
procedural point of view therefore, to "re-file" the case before the same court
would be an obvious faux pas. As a remedial measure, the plaintiff whose
complaint was dismissed due to improper venue can still file another complaint,
but this time in the court of proper venue. Note, however, that the dismissal of
the complaint filed in the court of improper venue did not stop the running of
the prescriptive period within which to file his complaint in the court of proper
venue. Theoretically, the plaintiff may decide to file a complaint containing
substantially the same allegations and prayer as the previously dismissed
complaint, or he may decide to amend the same and pray for a different relief.
In this case, the principle remains unchanged, that is, the court (of proper
venue) will only acquire jurisdiction over the case only upon the payment of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 prescribed docket fee thereon.
Article III, Sec. 11 of the 1987 Constitution states that "Free access to the
courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be
denied to any person by reason of poverty." It is for this reason that under Rule
141, Sec. 16 of the Rules of Court, pauper-litigants are exempted from the
payment of court fees, which includes the filing fee in instituting a complaint.
Nonetheless, the rule provides that the legal fees shall be a lien on the
monetary or property judgment rendered in favor of the pauper-litigant.
Private respondent, therefore, has as much "free access" to the courts to
seek redress of a wrong because there is no law or rule that prevents him from
going to court to file his complaint. But, the rule provides that he must pay the
prescribed docket fee because he is neither a pauper-litigant nor a person
expressly exempt by the Rules of Court from payment thereof.
Consequently, the Deputy Court Administrator committed an error when
he stated in his letter reply to private respondent's counsel that he can "re-file
the complaint in the RTC Cebu City (Branch 6) and present the official receipt
corresponding to the filing fees paid in the RTC Branch 26, San Jose, Southern
Leyte."
There is no way for the OCA letter to be misinterpreted by Odilao's
counsel because the tenor of the letter of Odilao to the OCA dated 20 June 1994
clearly stressed that he was requesting for an authorization (from the OCA) to
apply the filing fees he paid in Civil Case No. P-417 to cover the filing fees in a
case he intends to file with the RTC of Cebu City (Branch 6). In fact, both the
Regional Trial Court of Cebu City (Branch 6) and the Court of Appeals held the
opinion that this procedural remedy can be obtained from the Office of the
Deputy Court Administrator.
As early as 26 February 1991, the Court en banc had issued a resolution
11 containing guidelines on the duties and functions of the Office of the Court
Administrator. As a general rule, the Court acts through the Court Administrator
in the exercise of its administrative functions. The resolution clearly classified
the work attended to by the OCA, either on its responsibility or with the
approval of the Court en banc, into the following categories:
1. Judicial discipline of judges and personnel.

2. Administrative interventions in case of management of lower

courts, including designation of Executive Judges and detail
of judges to other courts.

3. Preparation of draft circulars.

4. Public assistance and information.
5. Personnel administration and

6. Liaison with the Executive and Legislative Departments.

From the foregoing enumeration, it is clear that the OCA has neither the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 power nor the authority to exempt any party not otherwise exempt under the
law or under the Rules of Court in the payment of the prescribed docket fees.
The principles laid down by this Court in Manchester and in Sun Insurance were
formulated en banc, no less than the Constitution mandates that no doctrine or
principle laid down by the court in a decision en banc may be modified or
reversed except by the court sitting en banc. To now exempt or otherwise
authorize private respondent Odilao not to pay the prescribed filing fees would
not only be in derogation of this principle but also of the general rule in
pleadings, practice and procedure that the mistake of counsel binds his client.
In fine, the Court will not allow the office of the Court Administrator to be
unduly burdened in futuro with similar letter-requests from litigants for an
exemption in the payment of the prescribed docket fees or in private
respondent's language, for an authorization to apply the docket fees paid in a
dismissed case to cover the docket fees once the case is re-filed in the court of
proper venue. In other words, the Court Administrator cannot grant any relief or
remedial measure which is beyond his powers and functions. It may be
noteworthy to mention here that even in the Supreme Court, there are
numerous instances when a litigant has had to re-file a petition previously
dismissed by the Court due to a technicality (violation of a pertinent Circular),
and in these instances, the litigant is required to pay the prescribed docket fee
and not apply to the re-filed case the docket fees paid in the earlier dismissed
case. cdti

Coming back to the case at bar, and pursuant to the rules laid down by
this Court in Sun Insurance, we hold that under the peculiar circumstances of
this case private respondent did not really intend to evade the payment of the
prescribed docket fee. His counsel simply strayed away from the rules to
explore the possibility of an extra legal remedy. Since his case has already
been docketed as Civil Case No. 16336 in the RTC Branch 6 Cebu City, the
procedural remedy of paying the prescribed docket fees is still available to him
provided, of course, that the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period has
not yet set in.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the Court of Appeals is
hereby SET ASIDE. The Regional Trial Court (Branch 6) Cebu City is hereby
ordered to require private respondent to pay the prescribed docket fees in Civil
Case No. 16336 as a condition precedent for further hearing the case, after
ascertaining at the earliest date practicable from the records that private
respondent's complaint has not been barred by prescription at the time it was
filed in said court.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, Vitug, Kapunan and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ ., concur.

Footnotes
1. Per Justice Pedro A. Ramirez, concurred in by Justices Conchita Carpio-
Morales and Ruben T. Reyes.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 2. Annex "6", Original Records, p. 31.
3. Annex "D", Original Records, p. 26.
4. Annex "E", Original Records, pp. 28-29.
5. Annex "F", Original Records, p. 30.
6. Original Records, p. 33.

7. Rollo , p. 19.
8. 171 SCRA 674.
9. 170 SCRA 274. See also Tacay v. Regional Trial Court 180 SCRA 433.
10. General v. Claravall, 195 SCRA 625,626.
11. See Supreme Court Circular No. 30-91 dated September 30, 1991.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com