A.M. No.

08-2-01-0 :: PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON-LINE :: CHANRO… Page 1 of 12

A.M. No. 08-2-01-0 : February 11, 2010

EN BANC

RE: PETITION FOR RECOGNITION OF THE EXEMPTION OF THE GOVERNMENT SER-

VICE INSURANCE SYSTEM FROM PAYMENT OF LEGAL FEES. GOVERNMENT SER-
VICE INSURANCE SYSTEM,Petitioner.

RESOLUTION

CORONA, J.:

May the legislature exempt the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) from
legal fees imposed by the Court on government-owned and controlled corporations
and local government units? This is the central issue in this administrative matter.

The GSIS seeks exemption from the payment of legal fees imposed on government-
owned or controlled corporations under Section 22,1cralaw Rule 141 (Legal Fees) of
the Rules of Court. The said provision states:

SEC. 22. Government exempt. The Republic of the Philippines, its

agencies and instrumentalities are exempt from paying the legal
fees provided in this Rule. Local government corporations and gov-
ernment-owned or controlled corporations with or without independ-
ent charter are not exempt from paying such fees.

However, all court actions, criminal or civil, instituted at the

instance of the provincial, city or municipal treasurer or assessor
under Sec. 280 of the Local Government Code of 1991 shall be
exempt from the payment of court and sheriff's fees. (emphasis
supplied)

The GSIS anchors its petition on Section 39 of its charter, RA2cralaw 8291 (The GSIS
Act of 1997):

SEC. 39. Exemption from Tax, Legal Process and Lien. It is hereby
declared to be the policy of the State that the actuarial solvency of
the funds of the GSIS shall be preserved and maintained at all
times and that contribution rates necessary to sustain the benefits
under this Act shall be kept as low as possible in order not to bur-
den the members of the GSIS and their employers. Taxes imposed
on the GSIS tend to impair the actuarial solvency of its funds and
increase the contribution rate necessary to sustain the benefits of this
Act. Accordingly, notwithstanding any laws to the contrary, the
GSIS, its assets, revenues including accruals thereto, and benefits paid,
shall be exempt from all taxes, assessments, fees, charges or duties of
all kinds. These exemptions shall continue unless expressly and
specifically revoked and any assessment against the GSIS as of the
approval of this Act are hereby considered paid.Consequently, all laws,
ordinances, regulations, issuances, opinions or jurisprudence contrary
to or in derogation of this provision are hereby deemed repealed,
superseded and rendered ineffective and without legal force and effect.

https://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2010/february2010/08-2-01-0.php 9/16/2020
A.M. No. 08-2-01-0 :: PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON-LINE :: CHANRO… Page 2 of 12

Moreover, these exemptions shall not be affected by subsequent

laws to the contrary unless this section is expressly, specifically
and categorically revoked or repealed by law and a provision is
enacted to substitute or replace the exemption referred to herein
as an essential factor to maintain and protect the solvency of the
fund, notwithstanding and independently of the guaranty of the
national government to secure such solvency or liability.

The funds and/or the properties referred to herein as well as the

benefits, sums or monies corresponding to the benefits under this
Act shall be exempt from attachment, garnishment, execution,
levy or other processes issued by the courts, quasi-judicial agen-
cies or administrative bodies including Commission on Audit
(COA) disallowances and from all financial obligations of the
members, including his pecuniary accountability arising from or
caused or occasioned by his exercise or performance of his official
functions or duties, or incurred relative to or in connection with
his position or work except when his monetary liability, contrac-
tual or otherwise, is in favour of the GSIS. (emphasis supplied)

The GSIS then avers that courts still assess and collect legal fees in actions and pro-
ceedings instituted by the GSIS notwithstanding its exemption from taxes, assess-
ments, fees, charges, or duties of all kinds under Section 39. For this reason, the GSIS
urges this Court to recognize its exemption from payment of legal fees.

According to the GSIS, the purpose of its exemption is to preserve and maintain the
actuarial solvency of its funds and to keep the contribution rates necessary to sustain
the benefits provided by RA 8291 as low as possible. Like the terms "taxes," "assess-
ments," "charges," and "duties," the term "fees" is used in the law in its generic and
ordinary sense as any form of government imposition. The word "fees," defined as
"charge[s] fixed by law for services of public officers or for the use of a privilege
under control of government," is qualified by the phrase "of all kinds."3cralaw Hence,
it includes the legal fees prescribed by this Court under Rule 141. Moreover, no dis-
tinction should be made based on the kind of fees imposed on the GSIS or the GSIS
ability to pay because the law itself does not distinguish based on those matters.

The GSIS argues that its exemption from the payment of legal fees would not mean
that RA 8291 is superior to the Rules of Court. It would merely show "deference" by
the Court to the legislature as a co-equal branch.4cralaw This deference will recog-
nize the "compelling and overriding" State interest in the preservation of the actuar-
ial solvency of the GSIS for the benefit of its members.5cralaw

The GSIS further contends that the right of government workers to social security is
an aspect of social justice. The right to social security is also guaranteed under Arti-
cle 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 9 of the Interna-
tional Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The Court has the power to
promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights,
including the right to social security, but the GSIS is not compelling the Court to
promulgate such rules. The GSIS is merely asking the Court to recognize and allow
the exercise of the right of the GSIS "to seek relief from the courts of justice sans
payment of legal fees."6cralaw

Required to comment on the GSIS petition,7cralaw the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG) maintains that the petition should be denied.8cralaw According to the OSG, the
issue of the GSIS exemption from legal fees has been resolved by the issuance by
then Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.9cralaw of OCA10cralaw Circular
No. 93-2004:

TO : ALL JUDGES, CLERKS OF COURT AND COURT PERSONNEL

OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL
COURTS IN CITIES, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL
CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS, SHARIA CIRCUIT COURTS

https://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2010/february2010/08-2-01-0.php 9/16/2020
A.M. No. 08-2-01-0 :: PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON-LINE :: CHANRO… Page 3 of 12

SUBJECT : REMINDER ON THE STRICT OBSERVANCE OF

ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 3-98 ( Re: Payment of Docket
and Filing Fees in Extra-Judicial Foreclosure ); SECTION 21, RULE
141 OF THE RULES OF COURT; SECTION 3 OF PRESIDENTIAL
DECREE NO. 385; and ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 07-99 (
Re: Exercise of Utmost Caution, Prudence, and Judiciousness in
Issuance of Temporary Restraining Orders and Writs of Prelimi-
nary Injunctions )

Pursuant to the Resolution of the Third Division of the Supreme

Court dated 05 April 2004 and to give notice to the concern raised
by the [GSIS] to expedite extrajudicial foreclosure cases filed in
court, we wish to remind all concerned [of] the pertinent provi-
sions of Administrative Circular No. 3-98, to wit:

2. No written request/petition for extrajudicial foreclosure of

mortgages, real or chattel, shall be acted upon by the Clerk of
Court, as Ex-Officio Sheriff, without the corresponding filing fee
having been paid and the receipt thereof attached to the
request/petition as provided for in Sec. 7(c), of Rule 141 of the
Rules of Court.

3. No certificate of sale shall be issued in favor of the highest bid-

der until all fees provided for in the aforementioned sections and
paragraph 3 of Section 9 (I) of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court shall
have been paid.The sheriff shall attach to the records of the case a
certified copy of the Official Receipt [O.R.] of the payment of the
fees and shall note the O.R. number in the duplicate of the Certifi-
cate of Sale attached to the records of the case.

Moreover, to settle any queries as to the status of exemption from payment of docket
and legal fees of government entities, Section 21, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court
explicitly provides:

SEC. 21. Government exempt. The Republic of the Philippines, its

agencies and instrumentalities are exempt from paying the legal
fees provided in this Rule. Local governments and government-
owned or controlled corporations with or without independent charters

arenot exempt from paying such fees.11cralaw

xxx xxx xxx

The OSG contends that there is nothing in Section 39 of RA 8291 that exempts the
GSIS from fees imposed by the Court in connection with judicial proceedings. The
exemption of the GSIS from "taxes, assessments, fees, charges or duties of all kinds"
is necessarily confined to those that do not involve pleading, practice and procedure.
Rule 141 has been promulgated by the Court pursuant to its exclusive rule-making
power under Section 5(5), Article VIII of the Constitution. Thus, it may not be
amended or repealed by Congress.

On this Court's order,12cralaw the Office of the Chief Attorney (OCAT) submitted a
report and recommendation13cralaw on the petition of the GSIS and the comment of
the OSG thereon. According to the OCAT, the claim of the GSIS for exemption from
the payment of legal fees has no legal basis. Read in its proper and full context, Sec-
tion 39 intends to preserve the actuarial solvency of GSIS funds by exempting the
GSIS from government impositions through taxes. Legal fees imposed under Rule 141
are not taxes.

https://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2010/february2010/08-2-01-0.php 9/16/2020
A.M. No. 08-2-01-0 :: PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON-LINE :: CHANRO… Page 4 of 12

The OCAT further posits that the GSIS could not have been exempted by Congress
from the payment of legal fees. Otherwise, Congress would have encroached on the
rule-making power of this Court.

According to the OCAT, this is the second time that the GSIS is seeking exemption
from paying legal fees.14cralaw The OCAT also points out that there are other gov-
ernment-owned or controlled corporations and local government units which asked
for exemption from paying legal fees citing provisions in their respective charters
that are similar to Section 39 of RA 8291.15cralaw Thus, the OCAT recommends that
the petition of GSIS be denied and the issue be settled once and for all for the guid-
ance of the concerned parties.

Faced with the differing opinions of the GSIS, the OSG and the OCAT, we now pro-
ceed to probe into the heart of this matter: may Congress exempt the GSIS from the
payment of legal fees? No.

The GSIS urges the Court to show deference to Congress by recognizing the exemp-
tion of the GSIS under Section 39 of RA 8291 from legal fees imposed under Rule 141.
Effectively, the GSIS wants this Court to recognize a power of Congress to repeal,
amend or modify a rule of procedure promulgated by the Court. However, the Consti-
tution and jurisprudence do not sanction such view.

Rule 141 (on Legal Fees) of the Rules of Court was promulgated by this Court in the
exercise of its rule-making powers under Section 5(5), Article VIII of the Constitu-
tion:

Sec. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:

xxx xxx xxx

(5) Promulgate rules concerningthe protection and enforcement of

constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts,
the admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal
assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a sim-
plified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of
cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall
not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of pro-
cedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain
effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.

xxx xxx x x x (emphasis supplied)

The power to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice and

procedure in all courts is a traditional power of this
Court.16cralaw It necessarily includes the power to address all
questions arising from or connected to the implementation of the
said rules.

The Rules of Court was promulgated in the exercise of the Court's

rule-making power. It is essentially procedural in nature as it does
not create, diminish, increase or modify substantive rights. Corol-
larily, Rule 141 is basically procedural. It does not create or take
away a right but simply operates as a means to implement an
existing right. In particular, it functions to regulate the procedure
of exercising a right of action and enforcing a cause of
action.17cralaw In particular, it pertains to the procedural require-
ment of paying the prescribed legal fees in the filing of a pleading
or any application that initiates an action or proceeding.18cralaw

https://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2010/february2010/08-2-01-0.php 9/16/2020
A.M. No. 08-2-01-0 :: PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON-LINE :: CHANRO… Page 5 of 12

Clearly, therefore, the payment of legal fees under Rule 141 of the
Rules of Court is an integral part of the rules promulgated by this
Court pursuant to its rule-making power under Section 5(5), Arti-
cle VIII of the Constitution. In particular, it is part of the rules
concerning pleading, practice and procedure in courts. Indeed,
payment of legal (or docket) fees is a jurisdictional require-
ment.19cralaw 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 sub-
ject-matter or nature of the action.20cralaw Appellate docket and
other lawful fees are required to be paid within the same period
for taking an appeal.21cralaw Payment of docket fees in full within
the prescribed period is mandatory for the perfection of an
appeal.22cralaw Without such payment, the appellate court does
not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action and
the decision sought to be appealed from becomes final and execu-
tory.23cralaw

An interesting aspect of legal fees is that which relates to indigent

or pauper litigants. In proper cases, courts may waive the collec-
tion of legal fees. This, the Court has allowed in Section 21, Rule 3
and Section 19, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court in recognition of the
right of access to justice by the poor under Section 11, Article III of
the Constitution.24cralaw Mindful that the rule with respect to
indigent litigants should not be ironclad as it touches on the right
of access to justice by the poor,25cralaw the Court acknowledged
the exemption from legal fees of indigent clients of the Public
Attorney's Office under Section 16-D of the Administrative Code of
1987, as amended by RA 9406.26cralaw This was not an abdica-
tion by the Court of its rule-making power but simply a recogni-
tion of the limits of that power. In particular, it reflected a keen
awareness that, in the exercise of its rule-making power, the Court
may not dilute or defeat the right of access to justice of indigent
litigants.

The GSIS cannot successfully invoke the right to social security of

government employees in support of its petition. It is a corporate
entity whose personality is separate and distinct from that of its
individual members. The rights of its members are not its rights;
its rights, powers and functions pertain to it solely and are not
shared by its members. Its capacity to sue and bring actions
under Section 41(g) of RA 8291, the specific power which involves
the exemption that it claims in this case, pertains to it and not to
its members. Indeed, even the GSIS acknowledges that, in claim-
ing exemption from the payment of legal fees, it is not asking that
rules be made to enforce the right to social security of its mem-
bers but that the Court recognize the alleged right of the GSIS"to
seek relief from the courts of justice sans payment of legal
fees."27cralaw

However, the alleged right of the GSIS does not exist. The pay-
ment of legal fees does not take away the capacity of the GSIS to

https://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2010/february2010/08-2-01-0.php 9/16/2020
A.M. No. 08-2-01-0 :: PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON-LINE :: CHANRO… Page 6 of 12

sue. It simply operates as a means by which that capacity may be

implemented.

Since the payment of legal fees is a vital component of the rules

promulgated by this Court concerning pleading, practice and pro-
cedure, it cannot be validly annulled, changed or modified by Con-
gress. As one of the safeguards of this Court's institutional inde-
pendence, the power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice and
procedure is now the Court's exclusive domain. That power is no
longer shared by this Court with Congress, much less with the
Executive.28cralaw

Speaking for the Court, then Associate Justice (now Chief Justice)
Reynato S. Puno traced the history of the rule-making power of
this Court and highlighted its evolution and development in Eche-
garay v. Secretary of Justice :29cralaw

Under the 1935 Constitution, the power of this Court to promul-

gate rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure was
granted but it appeared to be co-existent with legislative power
for it was subject to the power of Congress to repeal, alter or sup-
plement. Thus, its Section 13, Article VIII provides:

Sec. 13. The Supreme Court shall have the power to promulgate
rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure in all courts,
and the admission to the practice of law. Said rules shall be uni-
form for all courts of the same grade and shall not diminish,
increase, or modify substantive rights. The existing laws on
pleading, practice and procedure are hereby repealed as statutes,
and are declared Rules of Court, subject to the power of the
Supreme Court to alter and modify the same. The Congress shall
have the power to repeal, alter or supplement the rules concerning
pleading, practice and procedure, and the admission to the prac-
tice of law in the Philippines.

The said power of Congress, however, is not as absolute as it may

appear on its surface. In In re Cunanan , Congress in the exercise
of its power to amend rules of the Supreme Court regarding
admission to the practice of law, enacted the Bar Flunkers Act of
1953 which considered as a passing grade, the average of 70% in
the bar examinations after July 4, 1946 up to August 1951 and
71% in the 1952 bar examinations. This Court struck down the law
as unconstitutional. In his ponencia, Mr. Justice Diokno held that "x
x x the disputed law is not a legislation; it is a judgment - a judg-
ment promulgated by this Court during the aforecited years
affecting the bar candidates concerned; and although this Court
certainly can revoke these judgments even now, for justifiable rea-
sons, it is no less certain that only this Court, and not the legisla-
tive nor executive department, that may do so. Any attempt on the
part of these departments would be a clear usurpation of its func-
tion, as is the case with the law in question." The venerable jurist

https://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2010/february2010/08-2-01-0.php 9/16/2020
A.M. No. 08-2-01-0 :: PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON-LINE :: CHANRO… Page 7 of 12

further ruled: "It is obvious, therefore, that the ultimate power to

grant license for the practice of law belongs exclusivelyto this
Court, and the law passed by Congress on the matter is of permis-
sive character, or as other authorities say, merely to fix the mini-
mum conditions for the license." By its ruling, this Court qualified
the absolutist tone of the power of Congressto "repeal, alter or sup-
plement the rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure,
and the admission to the practice of law in the Philippines.

The ruling of this Court in In re Cunanan was not changed by the

1973 Constitution. For the 1973 Constitution reiteratedthe power of
this Court "to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice and
procedure in all courts, x x x which, however, may be repealed,
altered or supplemented by the Batasang Pambansa x x x." More
completely, Section 5(2)5 of its Article X provided:

xxx xxx xxx

Sec. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers.

xxx xxx xxx

(5) Promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure

in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, and the integra-
tion of the Bar, which, however, may be repealed, altered, or sup-
plemented by the Batasang Pambansa. Such rules shall provide a
simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of
cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall
not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights.

Well worth noting is that the 1973 Constitution further strengthened

the independence of the judiciary by giving to it the additional
power to promulgate rules governing the integration of the Bar.

The 1987 Constitutionmolded an even stronger and more independent

judiciary. Among others, it enhanced the rule making power of this
Court.Its Section 5(5), Article VIII provides:

xxx xxx xxx

Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:

xxx xxx xxx

(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of

constitutional rights, pleading, practice and procedure in all courts,
the admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal
assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a sim-
plified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of
cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall
not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of pro-
cedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective
unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.

https://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2010/february2010/08-2-01-0.php 9/16/2020
A.M. No. 08-2-01-0 :: PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON-LINE :: CHANRO… Page 8 of 12

The rule making power of this Court was expanded.This Court for the
first timewas given the power to promulgate rules concerning the
protection and enforcement of constitutional rights. The Court
was also granted for the first timethe power to disapprove rules of
procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies. But most
importantly, the 1987 Constitution took away the power of Congress to
repeal, alter, or supplement rules concerning pleading, practice and
procedure. In fine, the power to promulgate rules of pleading,
practice and procedure is no longer shared by this Court with
Congress, more so with the Executive.

The separation of powers among the three co-equal branches of

our government has erected an impregnable wall that keeps the
power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice and procedure
within the sole province of this Court. The other branches trespass
upon this prerogative if they enact laws or issue orders that effec-
tively repeal, alter or modify any of the procedural rules promul-
gated by this Court. Viewed from this perspective, the claim of a
legislative grant of exemption from the payment of legal fees
under Section 39 of RA 8291 necessarily fails.

Congress could not have carved out an exemption for the GSIS
from the payment of legal fees without transgressing another
equally important institutional safeguard of the Court's independ-
ence fiscal autonomy.30cralaw Fiscal autonomy recognizes the
power and authority of the Court to levy, assess and collect
fees,31cralaw including legal fees. Moreover, legal fees under Rule
141 have two basic components, the Judiciary Development Fund
(JDF) and the Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund
(SAJF).32cralaw The laws which established the JDF and the
SAJF33cralaw expressly declare the identical purpose of these
funds to "guarantee the independence of the Judiciary as man-
dated by the Constitution and public policy."34cralaw Legal fees
therefore do not only constitute a vital source of the Court's finan-
cial resources but also comprise an essential element of the
Court's fiscal independence. Any exemption from the payment of
legal fees granted by Congress to government-owned or controlled
corporations and local government units will necessarily reduce
the JDF and the SAJF. Undoubtedly, such situation is constitution-
ally infirm for it impairs the Court's guaranteed fiscal autonomy
and erodes its independence.

WHEREFORE, the petition of the Government Service Insurance

System for recognition of its exemption from the payment of legal
fees imposed under Section 22 of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court on
government-owned or controlled corporations and local govern-
ment units is hereby DENIED.

The Office of the Court Administrator is hereby directed to

promptly issue a circular to inform all courts in the Philippines of
the import of this resolution.

SO ORDERED.

https://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2010/february2010/08-2-01-0.php 9/16/2020
A.M. No. 08-2-01-0 :: PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON-LINE :: CHANRO… Page 9 of 12

RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice

ANTONIO T. CARPIO CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES

Associate Justice Associate Justice

ANTONIO EDUARDO B.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
NACHURA
Associate Justice

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE
ARTURO D. BRION
CASTRO Associate Justice
Associate Justice

DIOSDADO M. PERALTA LUCAS P. BERSAMIN

Associate Justice Associate Justice

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO ROBERTO A. ABAD

Associate Justice Associate Justice

MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. JOSE P. PEREZ

Associate Justice Associate Justice

JOSE C. MENDOZA
Associate Justice

Endnotes:

1cralaw The present Section 22 of Rule 141 was originally a single-

sentence provision:

SEC. 17. Government exempt. The Republic of the Philippines is

exempt from paying the legal fees provided in this Rule.

When Rule 141 was amended effective November 2, 1990, the pro-
vision was re-numbered as Section 19 which read as follows:

SEC. 19. Government exempt. The Republic of the Philippines is

exempt from paying the legal fees provided in this Rule. Local gov-
ernments and government-owned or controlled corporations with
or without independent charters are not exempt from paying such
fees.

2cralaw Republic Act.

3cralaw Petition, p. 5. Rollo , p. 5.

4cralaw Id. p. 8.

5cralaw Id.

6cralaw Id., p. 11.

7cralaw Per resolution dated February 19, 2008.

https://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2010/february2010/08-2-01-0.php 9/16/2020
A.M. No. 08-2-01-0 :: PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON-LINE :: CHANR… Page 10 of 12

8cralaw Comment of the OSG. Rollo , pp. 34-46.

9cralaw Now a member of this Court.

10cralaw Office of the Court Administrator.

11cralaw Emphasis in the original.

12cralaw Per resolution dated July 8, 2008.

13cralaw Report of the OCAT. Rollo , pp. 81-101.

14cralaw In 1991, the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of

Makati sought clarification of Section 19 (precursor of the present
Section 22) of Rule 141 due to the assertion of the GSIS that it did
not have to pay legal fees in extrajudicial foreclosure of mort-
gages. The OCAT, thru then Assistant Chief Attorney (now Associ-
ate Justice of this Court) Jose P. Perez, in a memorandum dated
April 16, 1985 noted and approved by then Chief Attorney
Damasita M. Aquino, rejected the claim of GSIS.

15cralaw These include the National Home Mortgage Finance Cor-

poration, the National Irrigation Administration and local govern-
ment units, such as the Province of Batangas.

16cralaw Bernas, S.J., Joaquin G., The 1987 Constitution of the

Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary, 969 (2003).

17cralaw The term "right of action" is the right to commence and

maintain an action. In the law of pleadings, right of action is dis-
tinguished from a cause of action in that the former is a remedial
right belonging to some persons, while the latter is a formal state-
ment of the operational facts that give rise to such remedial right.
The former is a matter of right and depends on the substantive
law, while the latter is a matter of statute and is governed by the
law of procedure. The right of action springs from the cause of
action, but does not accrue until all the facts that constitute the
cause of action have occurred ( Multi-Realty Development Corpo-
ration v. Makati Tuscany Condominium Corporation , G.R. No.
146726, 16 June 2006, 491 SCRA 9).

18cralaw In this connection, Section 1, Rule 141 of the Rules of

Court provides:

SEC. 1. Payment of fees. Upon the filing of the pleading or other

application which initiates an action or proceeding, the fees pre-
scribed therefor shall be paid in full.

19cralaw See Manchester Development Corporation v. Court of

Appeals , 233 Phil. 579 (1987) and Nestle Philippines, Inc. v. FY
Sons, Inc. , G.R. No. 150780, 05 May 2006, 489 SCRA 624.

https://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2010/february2010/08-2-01-0.php 9/16/2020
A.M. No. 08-2-01-0 :: PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON-LINE :: CHANR… Page 11 of 12

20cralaw Sun Insurance Office, Ltd., (SIOL) v. Asuncion , G.R. Nos.

79937-38, 13 February 1989, 170 SCRA 274.

21cralaw See Section 4, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court:

SEC. 4. Appellate court docket and other lawful fees. Within the
period for taking an appeal, the appellant shall pay to the clerk of
court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from,
the full amount of the appellate court docket and other lawful
fees. Proof of payment of said fees shall be transmitted to the
appellate court together with the original record or the record on
appeal.

22cralaw Enriquez v. Enriquez , G.R. No. 139303, 25 August 2005,

468 SCRA 77.

23cralaw Id.

24cralaw Section 11, Aricle III of the Constitution provides:

Sec. 11. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and
adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by
reason of poverty.

25cralaw This is an example of a substantive matter embodied in a

rule of procedure. (See Republic v. Gingoyon , G.R. No. 166429, 01
February 2006, 481 SCRA 457).

26cralaw SEC. 16-D. Exemption from Fees and Costs of the Suit . -
The clients of the PAO shall be exempt from payment of docket
and other fees incidental to instituting an action in court and
other quasi-judicial bodies, as an original proceeding or on
appeal. The costs of the suit, attorney's fees and contingent fees
imposed upon the adversary of the PAO clients after a successful
litigation shall be deposited in the National Treasury as trust fund
and shall be disbursed for special allowances of authorized offi-
cials and lawyers of the PAO.

(In this connection, see resolution dated June 12, 2007 in A. M.

No. 07-5-15-SC [Re: RA 9406, Exempting Clients of PAO From
Payment of Docket and Other Fees] and OCA Circular No. 121-
2007 dated December 11, 2007 [Re: Exemption of the Indigent Cli-
ents of the Public Attorney's Office From the Payment of Docket
and Other Fees] .)

27cralaw Supra note 3.

28cralaw Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice , 361 Phil. 76 (1999).

29cralaw Id.

https://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2010/february2010/08-2-01-0.php 9/16/2020
A.M. No. 08-2-01-0 :: PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON-LINE :: CHANR… Page 12 of 12

30cralaw Under Section 3, Article VIII of the Constitution, "[t] he

Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy."

31cralaw Bengzon v. Drilon , G.R. No. 103524, 15 April 1992, 208

SCRA 133.

32cralaw See Amended Administrative Circular No. 35-2004 dated

August 20, 2004 (Guidelines in the Allocation of the Legal Fees
Collected Under Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as Amended,
between the [SAJF] and the [JDF]).

33cralaw PD 1949 and RA 9227, respectively.

34cralaw Section 1 of PD 1949 provides:

Section 1. There is hereby established a [JDF] , hereinafter

referred to as the Fund, for the benefit of the members and per-
sonnel of the Judiciary to help ensure and guarantee the independ-
ence of the Judiciary as mandated by the Constitution and public policy-
and required by the impartial administration of justice. x x x
(emphasis supplied)

Section 1 of RA 9227 provides:

Section 1. Declaration of Policy . It is hereby declared a policy of

the State of adopt measures to guarantee the independence of the
Judiciary as mandated by the Constitution and public policy, and to
ensure impartial administration of justice, as well as an effective
and efficient system worthy of public trust and confidence.
(emphasis supplied)

https://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2010/february2010/08-2-01-0.php 9/16/2020