MIJARES v. RANADA G.R. No. 139325 April 12, 2005 Sec 1, Article III FACTS:
During the rule of President Marcos, thousands of Filipinos became victims of human rights violations such as torture, summary execution and illegal detainment. The petitioners Mijares et.al, were victims of such abuse and invoking the Alien Torts Act, they filed a class suit in the US District Court in Hawaii to claim damages from the Marcos estate. The class suit involv involved ed over over 10,000 10,000 victim victimss who endure endured d human human right rightss violat violation ionss from from 1972-19 1972-1987. 87. On February 3, 1995, the US District Court rendered a Final Judgment awarding the petitioners a total of $1,964,005,859.90 against the Marcos Estate. This judgment was affirmed by the US Court of Appeals. On May 20, 1997, the petitioners filed a case with the Makati RTC for the enforcement of the Final Judgment. They paid a filling fee of P410.00, based on Rule 141, §7(b) where the value of the subject matter is incapable of pecuniary estimation. Thereafter, the Marcos Estate filed a Motion Motion to Dismis Dismisss on the ground ground that that the petiti petitione oners rs fille filled d the incorr incorrect ect filing filing fee which which allegedly should have been based on the amount of the money claim sought to be enforced. Respondent Judge Santiago Ranada of the Makati RTC RTC issued the order of dismissal and opined that the subject matter of the complaint was indeed capable of pecuniary estimation as it involved a judgment rendered by a foreign court ordering the payment of a definite sum of money. According to the Judge, the estimated proper amount of filing fees was approximately P472 million, which the petitioners were not able to pay. The petitioners contend that their right to free access to the courts as provided for in Sec 11, Article 3 of the Constitution is overstepped by the excessively high filing fee. ISSUES:
Whether or not the petitioners paid the correct filing fee. HELD:
YES, the filing fees were CORRECTLY paid. The petitioners paid the correct amount for their case falls under the classification of “other actions not involving property”. Petitioners' complaint may have been lodged against an estate, but it is clearly based on a judgment, the Final Judgment of the US District Court. It should should be distinguis distinguished hed from cases centered on money claims. While While it is true that the value of the foreign judgment can be ascertained, the case is not for a mere money claim but for the enforcement of a foreign judgment. With regard to the enforcement of foreign judgments in the Philippines, there is a general right recognized within our body of laws, and affirmed by the Constitution, to seek recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, as well as a right to defend against such enforcement on the grounds of want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. There are no obligatory rules derived from treaties or conventions that require
Philippines to recognize foreign judgments but it forms part of the generally accepted principles of international law. The rules of comity, utility and convenience of nations in international law have established a usage among civilized states by which final judgments of foreign courts of competent jurisdiction are reciprocally respected and rendered efficacious under certain conditions. The complaint to enforce the US District Court judgment is one capable of pecuniary estimation. But at the same time, it is also an action based on a final foreign judgment against an estate, Prepared by: Marianne Carmel Agunoy thus placing it beyond the reach of Section 7(a) of Rule 141. It is covered by Section 7(b)(3), since it involves, "other actions not involving property." Notably, the amount paid as docket fees by the petitioners on the premise that it was an action incapable of pecuniary estimation corresponds to the same amount required for "other actions not involving property." The petitioners thus paid the correct amount of filing fees, and it was a grave abuse of discretion for respondent judge to have applied instead a clearly inapplicable rule and dismissed the complaint. The court also ruled that the invocation of Section 11 of Article 3 is misplaced in the case at bar. It has been well settled that the constitutionality of an act will not be resolved by the courts if the controversy can be settled on other grounds or unless the resolution thereof is indispensable for the determination of the case. Petition GRANTED. The assailed orders of the respondent judge are nullified and set aside.
Prepared by: Marianne Carmel Agunoy
