THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 217643. February 3, 2016.]
NOVARTIS HEALTHCARE PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner,vs. LEOPOLDO E. LORENZO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated February 3, 2016, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 217643 (Novartis Healthcare Philippines, Inc. v. Leopoldo E. Lorenzo). — Respondent's Manifestation dated December 18, 2015 informing the Court that his comment on the petition for review on certiorari and a compact disc containing a soft copy of said comment in portable document format were personally filed on October 19, 2015 is NOTED.
For resolution is a petition for review of the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated May 20, 2014 and March 24, 2015, respectively, in CA-G.R. CV No. 98428 entitled "Leopoldo E. Lorenzo v. Novartis Healthcare Philippines, Inc., et al."
Lorenzo filed a complaint for damages against Novartis and Drs. Ofelia Adapon and Gilbert Lao for the ill-effects of Tegretol, a drug produced by the Novartis, prescribed to him by the latter. 1 He prayed for the payment of an unspecified amount for all future medical costs to repair the damage caused to him, P5 Million moral damages, P3 Million exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. 2 He paid a total amount of P161,074.00 as docket fees. 3 The Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 150, Makati City dismissed the complaint for failure to pay the correct docket fees. 4 The RTC noted that in the letters attached to the complaint, Lorenzo actually demanded P100 Million from Novartis and P20 Million from each doctor; thus, this constitutes the amount of actual damages that should have been pleaded and from which the correct docket fees should have been assessed. 5
Lorenzo appealed to the CA via a Rule 41 petition, which the CA granted, 6 ordering the reinstatement of the complaint and remand of the case to the RTC for appropriate proceedings. 7 Novartis moved for reconsideration but the CA denied its motion. 8
Before us, Novartis claims that the CA erred when it a) allowed respondent Lorenzo to file a Rule 41 Petition instead of a Rule 65 petition to question the RTC's dismissal of his complaint on the ground of failure to pay the correct docket fees, and b) ruled that a cause of action for "future costs" is incapable of pecuniary estimation and should not be included in the computation of docket fees. 9
We agree with Novartis that Lorenzo availed of the wrong mode of appeal. Section 1 (g), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court clearly provides that no appeal may be taken from an order dismissing an action without prejudice. The RTC Order dismissing the complaint for failure to file the appropriate docket fees is one without prejudice since Lorenzo is not barred from refiling his Complaint. Thus, under Section 1 of Rule 41, Lorenzo should have filed an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. 10
However, the courts, in the interest of equity or when justice demands, may interchangeably treat an appeal as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, and vice versa. 11 In the present case, the Court finds meritorious grounds to treat Lorenzo's appeal with the CA as a petition for certiorari and absolve him from the procedural lapse.
The RTC gravely erred in ruling that respondent Lorenzo fraudulently avoided payment of the correct docket fees when it failed to plead the P140 Million in his Complaint. 12 SDAaTC
In the First Cause of Action 13 in his Complaint, Lorenzo is claiming payment of future medical costs or costs to be incurred after the filing of the complaint; he did not specify any amount. This is understandable since claims of this kind require further submission, evidence and even expert testimony, especially on the type and cost of the appropriate procedure, as well as the post-operative needs which should be taken up during trial. Thus, the amounts indicated in Lorenzo's demand letters should not be included yet in computing the docket fees. We agree with the CA that the claim is one for payment of temperate damages since the amount claimed is for future complications arising from the injury Lorenzo suffered. 14 Thus, if the trial court later awards temperate damages to Lorenzo, the additional filing fee shall constitute a lien on the judgment. 15
IN VIEW of the FOREGOING, the Court resolves to DENY the petition and AFFIRM the Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution dated May 20, 2014 and March 24, 2015, respectively, in CA-G.R. CV No. 98428 insofar as it orders the REMAND of the case to the trial court.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, p. 39.
2. RTC records, pp. 22-23.
3. Id.
4. Rollo, p. 41.
5. Id.
6. Rollo, pp. 38-51.
7. Id. at 50.
8. Id. at 52-54.
9. Id. at 23.
10. See Strongworld Construction Corporation v. Perello, G.R. No. 148026, July 27, 2006, 496 SCRA 700.
11. Shugo Noda & Co., Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107404, March 30, 1994, 231 SCRA 620, 626 citing Collector of Internal Revenue v. Aznar, 102 Phil. 979 (1958). See also Golez v. Navarro, G.R. No. 192532, January 30, 2013, 689 SCRA 689.
12. CA rollo, p. 21.
13. RTC records, p. 18. The pertinent portion of the First Cause of Action in the Complaint reads:
63.1 all expenses necessary to perform reconstructive surgery on Lorenzo . . . including all expenses to maintain, correct, or improve the results of such reconstructive surgery and all incidental expenses . . .;
63.2 all expenses in conducting a periodic multi-disciplinary evaluation on Lorenzo . . . and to pay all expenses necessary to carry out the recommendations made;
63.3 all expenses in conducting a periodic multi-disciplinary evaluation on Lorenzo's immediate family members . . . and to pay all expenses necessary to carry out the recommendations made; and
63.4 all medical needs of Lorenzo during his lifetime.
14. Ramos vs. CA, G.R. No. 124354, December 29, 1999, 321 SCRA 584.
15. Section 2, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court; Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. v. Asuncion, G.R. Nos. 79937-38, February 13, 1989, 170 SCRA 274.