Algura vs. LGU of Naga City GR No. 150135 Facts:
Souses Antonio F. F. Algura Algura and Lorencita S.J. Algura filed filed a Verified Complaint for damages against the Naga City Government and its officers, arising from the alleged illegal demolition of their residence and oarding house and for payment of lost income derived from fees paid y their oarders amounting to !h! ",###.## monthly. Simultaneously, petitioners filed an Ex-Parte $otion to Litigate as %ndigent Litigants, to &hich petitioner Antonio Algura's !ay Slip( &as appended, sho&ing a gross monthly income of )en )en )housand Four *undred Seventy Four !esos +!h! #,-"-.##( and a net pay of )hree )housand Si *undred Siteen !esos and Ninety Nine Centavos +!h! /,00.11( for 2the month of3 July 111. Also attached as Anne 454 to the motion &as a July 111 Certification issued y the 6ffice of the City Assessor Assessor of Naga City, &hich &hich stated that petitioners had no property declared in their name for taation purposes. Finding that petitioners' motion to litigate as indigent litigants &as meritorious, 7ecutive Judge Jose ). Atien8a of the Naga City 9)C, in the Septemer , 111 6rder, granted petitioners' plea for eemption from filing fees. $ean&hile, as a result of respondent Naga City Government's demolition of a portion of petitioners' house, the Alguras allegedly lost a monthly income of !h! ",###.## from their oarders' rentals. :ith the loss of the rentals, the meager income from Lorencita Algura's sari-sari store and Antonio Algura's small ta;e home pay ecame insufficient for the epenses of the Algura spouses and their si +0( children for their asic needs including food, ills, clothes, and schooling, among others. 6n 6ctoer 111, respondents filed an Ans&er &ith Counterclaim dated 6ctoer #, 111, arguing that the defenses of the petitioners in the complaint had no cause of action, the spouses' oarding house loc;ed the road right of &ay, and said structure &as a nuisance per se. !raying that the counterclaim of defendants +respondents( e dismissed, petitioners then filed their 9eply &ith Ex-Parte 9e###, a pre=trial &as held &herein respondents as;ed for five +?( days &ithin &hich to file a $otion to @is###, respondents filed a $otion $otion to @is###. )hey asserted that in addition to the more than !h! /,###.## net income of petitioner Antonio Antonio Algura, &ho is a memer of the !hilippine National !olice, spouse Lorencita Algura also had a mini=store and a computer shop on the ground floor of their residence along 5aya&as St., Sta. Cru8, Naga City. Also, respondents claimed that petitioners' second floor &as used as their residence and as a oarding house, from &hich they earned more than !h! /,###.## a month. %n addition, it &as claimed that petitioners derived additional income from their computer shop patroni8ed y students and from several oarders &ho paid rentals to them. *ence, respondents concluded that petitioners &ere not indigent litigants. 6n $arch $arch >###, petitioners petitioners suse
6n April >###, the Naga City 9)C issued an 6rder dis###, petitioners filed a $otion for 9econsideration of the April >### 6rder. 6n $ay >###, respondents then filed their Comment6Dections to petitioner's $otion for 9econsideration. 6n $ay >###, the trial court issued an 6rder giving petitioners the opportunity to comply &ith the re###, petitioners sumitted their Compliance? attaching the affidavits of petitioner Lorencita Algura0 and 7rlinda 5angate," to comply &ith the re### Affidavit, petitioner Lorencita Algura claimed that the demolition of their small d&elling deprived her of a monthly income amounting to !h! ",###.##. She, her husand, and their si +0( minor children had to rely mainly on her husand's salary as a policeman &hich provided them a monthly amount of !h! /,?##.##, more or less. Also, they did not o&n any real property as certified y the assessor's office of Naga City. $ore so, according to her, the meager net income from her small sari=sari store and the rentals of some oarders, plus the salary of her husand, &ere not enough to pay the family's asic necessities. )o uttress their position as ### 6rder denying the petitioners' $otion for 9econsideration. Issue:
:hether or Not petitioners Algura should e considered as indigent litigants &ho
Held:
es. Applying 9ule /, Section > of the 11" 9ules of Civil !rocedure, )he petitioner Algura should e declared and considered as indigent litigants &ho
not satisfy one or oth re of 9ule / and use its sound discretion in determining the merits of the prayer for eemption. %n the Case at ar,the trial court should have applied 9ule /, Section > to the application of the Alguras after their affidavits and supporting documents sho&ed that petitioners did not satisfy the t&in re to enale the petitioners to adduce evidence to sho& that they didn't have property and money sufficient and availale for food, shelter, and asic necessities for them and their family. %n that hearing, the respondents &ould have had the right to also present evidence to refute the allegations and evidence in support of the application of the petitioners to litigate as indigent litigants. Since this Court is not a trier of facts, it &ill have to remand the case to the trial court to determine &hether petitioners can e considered as indigent litigants using the standards set in 9ule /, Section >.
