Al and Cita were the owners of a residential and boarding house with a market value of more than P300,000. Al’s total gross earnings were more than double the minimum wage of an employee. When the City where they lived demolished their residence and boarding house, Al and Cita filed an action for damages with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) against the City Government allegedly because the said demolition was illegal. Apparently, Al and Cita could not afford to pay the docket and legal fees for the amount of damages they were claiming so they requested the RTC to exempt them from the payment of said fees as indigent litigants. The RTC however denied their application for exemption. According to the RTC, the gross income or total earnings of Al exceeded the income requirement under Rule 141. Was the RTC correct?
No. Al and Cita may still be exempted if they can prove that they have "no money or property sufficient and available for food, shelter and basic necessities for themselves and their family". According to Section 21, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, they may be authorized to litigate their action as indigents upon an ex parte application and hearing to prove such fact. The exemption shall consist of payment of docket and other lawful fees and of transcripts of stenographic notes which the court may order to be furnished them. The amount of these fees shall be a lien on any judgment rendered in the case favorable to the indigent, unless the court otherwise provides.
If the applicant for exemption meets the salary and property requirements under Section 19, Rule 141, then the grant of exemption is mandatory. On the other hand, when the application does not satisfy one or both requirements, then the applicant should not be denied outright; instead the court should apply the "indigency test" under Section 21, Rule 3 and use its sound discretion in determining the merits of the application for exemption.
Access to justice by the impoverished is "sacrosanct" under the Constitution. Without doubt, one of the most precious right which may be shielded and secured is the unhampered access to the justice system by the poor, the underprivileged and the marginalized. So the RTC should set for hearing the motion of the spouses’ to litigate as indigents for it to determine whether they can pass the indigency test under Section 21, Rule 3 (Spouses Algura v. The Local Government Unit of the City of Naga et. al. G.R. 150135, October 30, 2006).