Pauper Litigant and Docket Fee Ayala Land, Inc. vs. Heirs of Lactao and Aquino G.R. 208213 August 8, 2018 Facts
Pauper Litigant and Docket Fee Ayala Land, Inc. vs. Heirs of Lactao and Aquino G.R. 208213 August 8, 2018 Facts
Pauper Litigant and Docket Fee Ayala Land, Inc. vs. Heirs of Lactao and Aquino G.R. 208213 August 8, 2018 Facts
payment, estopped from claiming indigence should he subsequently be required to pay additional
fees.
Respondents cannot likewise be faulted for not raising their indigence in CA-G.R. SP No. 99631 and G.R. No.
184376. They were of the view and thus asserted in these proceedings that they had paid the correct filing fees, and
any additional docket fees should constitute a lien on the judgment by virtue of their Affidavit of Undertaking and on
the strength of this Court's ruling in Sun Insurance.
As Pilipinas Shell demonstrates, an application to litigate as an indigent party may be made when
additional filing fees are imposed subsequent to the filing of the complaint and even after the
issue of docket fees had undergone appellate review.
Fourth. The amount of additional docket fees is unclear. While respondents alleged that the filing
fees had been recomputed by the Clerk of Court at ₱39,l72,020.00, it appears from the RTC's
November 21, 2011 Resolution that the additional filing fee is still undetermined as it directed the
Clerk of Court to reassess the correct amount of docket fees to be paid by respondents. Petitioner
itself has submitted a figure nearly 40% more than the alleged reassessment of the Clerk of Court.
Fifth. Access to justice by the impoverished is held sacrosanct under Article III, Section 11 of the
1987 Constitution. The idea of paying docket fees at ₱39,l 72,020.00, as alleged by respondents,
or ₱62,903,240.00, as computed by petitioner, is enough to give anyone pause. To an indigent, it
is scarcely within the realm of possibility.
Sixth. Respondents' motion to be allowed to litigate as indigent parties was granted by the RTC
in its Order of May 4, 2012, and petitioner's motion for reconsideration thereof is still pending resolution.
Petitioner argues that respondents cannot be allowed to litigate as indigents because they failed to comply with the
evidentiary requirements of Section 19 of Rule 141. Whether respondents qualify as indigent litigants is, however, a
question of fact.