Chua vs. Executive Judge, Metropolitan Trial Court, Manila

Filing fees in Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 cases are assessed and paid per information filed, and consolidation of multiple counts for trial purposes does not transform individual filing fees into a single indivisible obligation that must be paid in full before any case may proceed.

Richard Chua filed a complaint on 13 January 2012 before the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) of Manila charging Letty Sy Gan with forty counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (the Bouncing Checks Law). Following preliminary investigation, the OCP found probable cause and filed forty separate informations before the MeTC on 22 March 2012. The MeTC assessed filing fees totaling ₱540,668.00 based on the amounts of the checks involved.

• The Complaint and Preliminary Investigation: On 13 January 2012, petitioner Richard Chua filed a complaint with the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) of Manila charging Letty Sy Gan with forty counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (the Bouncing Checks Law), docketed as I.S. No. XV-07-INV-12A-00329. After conducting preliminary investigation, the OCP found probable cause.
• Filing of Informations and Assessment of Fees: On 22 March 2012, the OCP filed forty separate informations before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila. The MeTC informed petitioner that he was required to pay a total of ₱540,668.00 as filing fees for all forty counts. Each filing fee was individually assessed based on the amount of the check covered by each information.
• Financial Constraint and Clerk's Opinion: Finding the amount beyond his means, petitioner consulted with the MeTC clerk of court regarding the possibility of paying filing fees on a per case basis rather than the total amount at once. The clerk of court opined that such arrangement was not permitted.
• Undocketed Status and Consolidation: Due to non-payment of the required filing fees, the MeTC designated the forty counts as undocketed cases under UDK Nos. 12001457 to 96. Subsequently, the Office of the City Prosecutor moved for the consolidation of the said cases.
• The Urgent Motion: On 18 April 2012, petitioner filed before the Executive Judge an "Urgent Motion to Allow Private Complainant to Pay Filing Fee on a Per Case Basis," reiterating his request to pay filing fees per case rather than in entirety.
• The Denial: On 26 June 2012, the Executive Judge (Acting Executive Judge Ma. Ruby B. Camarista) issued an Order denying the motion. The Executive Judge ruled that granting the request would constitute a deferment in the payment of filing fees, which contravenes Section 1(b) of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, which was denied by Executive Judge Marlina M. Manuel via Order dated 26 July 2012.

• Permissibility of Per-Case Payment: Petitioner maintained that he was not seeking to evade payment but merely requesting to pay filing fees for those cases he could afford to finance given his current financial status. He argued that the total amount was beyond his means and that he should be allowed to pursue some of the cases by paying their respective filing fees individually.
• Nature of Filing Fees: Petitioner impliedly argued that the aggregate amount of ₱540,668.00 represented the sum of individual filing fees for each count, and that paying for some counts while deferring others did not constitute a prohibited deferment under the Rules of Court.

• Prohibition Against Deferment: Respondent Executive Judge countered that allowing petitioner to pay filing fees on a per case basis would constitute a deferment of payment prohibited under Section 1(b) of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, which requires that the offended party pay in full the filing fees based on the amount of the check involved upon filing the joint criminal and civil action.
• Indivisibility of Consolidated Cases: Respondent argued that because all forty counts emanated from a single complaint filed before the OCP and were consolidated before the court, the payment of filing fees should be made for all cases or none at all, treating the fees as one indivisible obligation.

• Procedural Remedy: Whether the petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 was the proper remedy to assail the interlocutory orders of the Executive Judge.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether the Executive Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing petitioner's request to pay filing fees on a per case basis for the forty counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.

• Procedural Remedy: The petition was improperly filed. The assailed orders dated 26 June 2012 and 26 July 2012 were not final orders appealable under Rule 45, nor proper subjects of appeal by certiorari, as they did not completely dispose of the B.P. 22 cases. The correct remedy was a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed before the appropriate Regional Trial Court pursuant to the principle of hierarchy of courts. However, in the weightier interest of substantial justice, the procedural lapses were forgiven and the instant petition treated as a certiorari petition properly filed before the Supreme Court, the grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Executive Judge being patent on the undisputed facts.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: The Executive Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the request. The amount of ₱540,668.00 was not one indivisible obligation but the sum of individual filing fees due for each of the forty informations filed. Granting the request would not constitute a deferment of payment, as petitioner clearly intended to pay in full the filing fees of some cases. Filing fees are assessed and become due for each initiatory pleading filed; in criminal actions, these refer to the information filed in court. Under Section 13 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, each count of an offense is stated in a separate paragraph of the information, making the forty counts equivalent to forty different informations representing independent violations. Consolidation of criminal cases under Section 22 of Rule 119 unifies cases only for purposes of trial and does not transform the filing fees due for each case into one indivisible fee.

• Assessment of Filing Fees in Criminal Actions — Filing fees, when required, are assessed and become due for each initiatory pleading filed. In criminal actions, the initiatory pleading is the information. Where multiple counts of an offense are charged, each count represents an independent violation requiring separate assessment of filing fees.
• Effect of Consolidation on Filing Fees — Consolidation of criminal cases involving related offenses unifies the cases only for purposes of trial. Consolidation does not merge the individual filing fees assessed for each case into a single indivisible obligation, nor does it alter the separate assessment of fees for each information filed.
• Hierarchy of Courts in Certiorari Proceedings — Certiorari petitions under Rule 65 should be filed with the appropriate Regional Trial Court before elevation to the Supreme Court. Direct filing with the Supreme Court is prohibited except in cases of special and important reasons, clearly and specifically set out in the petition.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Grave abuse of discretion exists where a court acts in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary, or despotic manner in the exercise of its judgment, equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The patent lack of basis for refusing a request to pay filing fees per information, where the rules clearly permit such payment scheme, constitutes grave abuse of discretion.

• "Filing fees, when required, are assessed and become due for each initiatory pleading filed. In criminal actions, these pleadings refer to the information filed in court."
• "Under the rules of criminal procedure, the filing of the forty (40) counts is equivalent to the filing of forty (40) different informations, as each count represents an independent violation of BP Blg. 22."
• "Consolidation unifies criminal cases involving related offenses only for purposes of trial. Consolidation does not transform the filing fees due for each case consolidated into one indivisible fee."
• "In proposing to pay filing fees on a per case basis, petitioner was not trying to evade or deny his obligation to pay for the filing fees for all forty (40) counts of violation of BP Blg. 22 filed before the MeTC... Rather, what petitioner is asking is that he at least be allowed to pursue some of the cases, the filing fees of which he is capable of financing."

• Miranda v. Court of Appeals, 163 Phil. 285 (1976) — Cited for the principle that the assailed orders were not final orders appealable under Rule 45.
• Jumaquio v. Villarosa, G.R. No. 165924, 19 January 2009, 576 SCRA 204 — Cited for the doctrine on hierarchy of courts requiring certiorari petitions to be filed with the Regional Trial Court before the Supreme Court.

• Section 1(b), Rule 111, Rules of Court — Provides that in Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 cases, the offended party shall pay in full the filing fees based on the amount of the check involved upon filing the joint criminal and civil action; interpreted by the Court not to prohibit per-information payment where multiple informations are filed.
• Section 1, Rule 141, Rules of Court — Provides that filing fees are assessed for each initiatory pleading filed.
• Section 13, Rule 110, Rules of Court — Provides that each count of an offense must be stated in a separate paragraph of the information, supporting the treatment of each count as a separate information.
• Section 22, Rule 119, Rules of Court — Governs consolidation of criminal cases, limited to unifying cases for purposes of trial.
• Section 1, Rule 65, Rules of Court — Governs petitions for certiorari.
• Section 1, Rule 45, Rules of Court — Governs petitions for review on certiorari.

Antonio T. Carpio, Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo, and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe.