RULE 141

LEGAL FEES(Amended Pursuant to the Resolution of the Court in A.M. No. 99-8-01-SC,)

MANNER OF PAYMENT

The fees prescribed shall be paid in full.

But when?Upon the :

1. filing of the pleading or ;

2. other application which initiates an action or proceeding

FEES IN LIEN

Query:

When shall the party concerned pay the additional fees which shall constitute a lien on the judgment in satisfaction of said lien?

Answer: Where the court in its final judgment awards a claim not alleged, or a relief different from, or more than that claimed in the pleading.

Who shall then assess and collect these corresponding fees?

a. Revenue District Officerb. Duly Authorized Agent c. Clerk of Courtd. City or Municipal Treasurer

PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO COLLECT LEGAL FEES

The persons authorized to collect legal fees shall be accountable officers and shall be required to post bond in such amount as prescribed by the law. (a) Clerks of the Supreme Court, CA, CTA, and Sandiganbayan (Sec.4)

(b) Clerks of RTCs (Sec. 7)

(c) Clerks of Court of First Level Courts (Sec. 8)

d) Sheriffs, Process Servers and other persons serving processes (Sec. 10)

(e) Stenographers (Sec. 11) (f) Notaries (Sec. 12)

(g) Other officers taking depositions (Sec. 13)

Are the assistants and deputies of the persons mentioned covered by

this Rule?

Yes, the officers and persons mentioned, together with their assistants and deputies, may demand, receive, and take the several fees and allowed for any business by them respectively done by virtue of their several offices, and no more.

Where will the fees collected be remitted?

ANSWER :

Supreme Court

Note:

The fees collected shall accrue to the general fund.

However….

All increases in the legal fees prescribed in amendments to this rule as well as new legal fees prescribed shall pertain to the “Judiciary Development Fund” as established by law.

It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate 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. [Sun Life Insurance Office LTD., v. Asuncion (1989)]

Case:G.R. No. 176783DIMAANO vs BERSAMIN

Doctrine: The sheriff’s fee is not a penalty for some wrong that a party had done. It is an assessment for the cost of the sheriff’s service in collecting the judgment amount for the benefit of such party. Its collection is authorized under Rule 141 of the Rules of Court.  

Dimaano attempts to make a distinction between money ordered “collected” from the judgment debtor and paid to the judgment creditor and money ordered “returned” by one party to another from whom such money was unlawfully taken.  

Dimaano claims that she was already a victim when the government illegally seized her money.  It would be unfair that she should still pay the government some fee to get her money back.  But, first, the imposition of the sheriff’s fee is not a penalty for some wrong that Dimaano had done.  It is an assessment for the cost of the sheriff’s service in collecting the judgment amount for her benefit.: 

 

Its collection is authorized under Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as amended thus:

– SEC. 3. Persons authorized to collect legal fees. – Except as otherwise provided in this rule, the officers and persons hereinafter mentioned, together with their assistants and deputies, may demand, receive, and take the several fees hereinafter mentioned x x x. x x x x

SEC. 10. Sheriffs, PROCESS SERVERS and other persons serving processes. – x x x

(l) For money collected by him x x x by order, execution, attachment, or any other process, judicial or extrajudicial which shall immediately be turned over to the Clerk of Court, x x x. 

Second, the order to pay a party the money owed him and the order to pay another the money unlawfully taken from him are both awards of actual or compensatory damages.  They compensate for the pecuniary loss that the party suffered and proved in court. The recipients of the award, whether for money owed or taken from him, benefit from the court’s intervention and service in collecting the amount.  

As the Sandiganbayan correctly said, what determines the assessment of the disputed court fee is the fact that the court, through valid processes, ordered a certain sum of money to be placed in the hands of the sheriff for turnover to the winning party. 

In addition to raising before the Court the matter of the sheriff’s fee, Dimaano also questions the Sandiganbayan’s failure to award interest on the amount that was to be returned to her considering that the government used and invested the money as if it were its own.  But, as the Republic points out, Dimaano could no longer seek the award of interest since she filed no appeal from the decision of the Sandiganbayan that ordered merely the return of such amount with no mention of interest