Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 137761
April 6, 2000
GABRIEL LAZARO a! "#$ #$ir% #$ ir% o& 'LORENCIA PINE(A a! E)A )IERNES, petitioners, vs. COURT O' APPEALS a! Spo*%$% +OSE a! ANITA ALESNA, respondents.
PANGANIBAN, J.:
ailure to pa! doc"et and other la#ful fees #ithin the prescribed period is a $round for the dis%issal of an appeal. This rule cannot be suspended b! the %ere invocation of &the interest of substantial 'ustice.& Procedural rules %a! be rela(ed onl! in e(ceptionall! %eritorious cases. The Case )efore us is a Petition for Certiorari under Certiorari under Rule *+ assailin$ t#o Resolutions, dated ul! -, //0 and Dece%ber 10, //0, both pro%ul$ated b! the 2ourt of 3ppeals 4235 in 2367.R. 2V No. *88/9. In the first Resolution, the 23 ruled: or resolution is a %otion to reconsider this 2ourt;s Resolution dis%issin$ the appeal for failure of appellants Rules on 2ivil Procedure. (((
(((
(((
2op! of the 'ud$%ent appealed fro% #as received b! appellants on Dece%ber *, //> and their notice of appeal #as filed on Dece%ber /, //>. The %otion for reconsideration of this 2ourt;s Resolution #as filed on ti%e, but the attached official receipt No. 1>*01/8 evidencin$ pa!%ent of the re?uired doc"etin$ fees #as dated une 1*, //0, //0, al%ost si( 4*5 %onths after the last da! to file notice of appeal. Ho#ever, appellants pra!ed that this 2ourt;s une >, //0 resolution be set aside, lifted, and this appeal reinstated, citin$ &interest of substantial 'ustice.&
In the li$ht of the fore$oin$, appellants; une 1*, //0 %otion is hereb! 7R3NT@D. 1 In its second Resolution, the 23 denied reconsideration in this #ise: or all the fore$oin$, there bein$ no co$ent or co%pellin$ reason to #arrant reconsideration of this court;s resolution dated ul! -, //0, the %otion of appellees is hereb! D@NI@D. The Facts )efore the Re$ional Trial 2ourt 4RT25 of )a!o%bon$, Nueva ViAca!a 4)ranch 1>5, Spouses ose and 3nita 3lesna, private respondents herein, filed a civil action for annul%ent of title, reconve!ance and da%a$es 4#ith pra!er for preli%inar! in'unction59 a$ainst Petitioners 7abriel BaAaro and the heirs of lorencia Pineda and @va Viernes. 3fter trial, the RT2 rendered 'ud$%ent in favor of the petitioners. Thereafter, the private respondents filed a Notice of 3ppeal before the trial court.+ In a Resolution dated une >, //0, the 23* dis%issed the appeal for failure of herein private respondents to pa! the re?uired doc"et fees #ithin the prescribed period. Thereafter, it issued its first assailed Resolution dated ul! -, //0 $rantin$ their Motion for Reconsideration and reinstatin$ the appeal. Subse?uentl!, the petitioners also filed their o#n Motion for Reconsideration assailin$ the said Resolution. 3s earlier stated, the 23 denied their Motion. Hence, this Petition.> Ruling of the Court of Appeals In reinstatin$ the appeal despite the failure of herein private respondents to pa! the doc"et fees #ithin the prescribed period, the 2ourt of 3ppeals invo"ed &the interest of substantial 'ustice.& It did not elaborate ho#ever. No specific circu%stance or an! other e(plana tion #as cited in support of its rulin$. Issue In their Me%orandu%, petitioners sub%it for the consideration of the 2ourt this lone ? uestion: &. . .
The Petition is %eritorious. Main Issue: Timely Payment of CA Docket Fees The Rules of 2ourt, as a%ended, specificall! provides that appellate court doc"et and other la#ful fees should be paid #ithin the period for ta"in$ an appeal. Hence, Section 9 of Rule 9 reads: Sec. 9. Appellate court docket and other lawful fees. E Fithin the period for ta"in$ an appeal,/ the appellant shall pa! to the cler" of the court #hich rendered the 'ud$%ent or final order appealed fro%, the full a%ount of the appellate court doc"et and other la#ful fees. Proof of pa!%ent of said fees shall be trans%itted to the appellate court to$ether #ith the ori$inal record or the record on appeal. 2ontrar! to the sub%ission of private respondents that the aforecited rule is %erel! director!, the pa!%ent of the doc"et and other le$al fees #ithin the prescribed period is both %andator! and 'urisdictional. Section 4c5, Rule +8 of the Rules of 2ourt provides: &ailure of the appellant to pa! the doc"et and other fees as provided in Section 9 of Rule 9& is a $round for the dis%issal of the appeal. Indeed, it has been held that failure of the appellant to confor% #ith the rules on appeal renders the 'ud$%ent final and e(ecutor!. 8 Veril!, the ri$ht to appeal is a statutor! ri$ht and one #ho see"s to avail of that ri$ht %ust co%pl! #ith the statute or the rule. In the present case, the private respondents failed to pa! the re?uired doc"et fees #ithin the re$le%entar! period.!wphi In fact, the 2ourt notes that the! paid the fees onl! after the 23 had dis%issed the appeal, or si( %onths after the filin$ of the Notice of 3ppeal. 2learl!, e(istin$ 'urisprudence and the Rules %andate that the appeal should be dis%issed. The appellate court nonetheless reinstated the appea l &in the interest of substantial 'ustice.& )ut as earlier observed, it did not cite an! specific circu%stance or an! other e(planation in support of its rulin$. or their part, private respondents failed to offer a satisfactor! e(planation #h ! the! paid the doc"et fees si( %onths after the prescribed period. Indeed, neither the! nor the 2ourt of 3ppeals sho#ed fraud, accident, %ista"e, e(cusable ne$li$ence, or an! other reason to 'ustif! the suspension of the aforecited rule. 1 Fe %ust stress that the bare invocation of &the interest of substantial 'ustice& is not a %a$ ic #and that #ill auto%aticall! co%pel this 2ourt to suspend procedural rules. &Procedural rules are not to be belittled or dis%issed si%pl! because their non6observance %a ! have resulted in pre'udice to a part!;s substantive ri$hts. Bi"e all rules, the! are re?uired to be follo#ed e(cept onl! for the %ost persuasive of reasons #hen the! %a! be rela(ed to relieve a liti$ant of an in'ustice not
co%%ensurate #ith the de$ree of his thou$htlessness in not co %pl!in$ #ith the procedure prescribed.&- The 2ourt reiterates that rules of procedure, especiall! those prescribin$ the ti%e #ithin #hich certain acts %ust be done, &have oft been held as absolutel! indispensable to the prevention of needless dela!s and to the orderl! and speed! dischar$e of business. . . . The reason for rules of this nature is because the d ispatch of business b! courts #ould be i%possible, and intolerable dela!s #ould result, #ithout rules $overnin$ practice . . . . Such rules are a necessar! incident to the proper, efficient and orderl! dischar$e of 'udicial functions.& 9 Indeed, in no uncertain ter%s, the 2ourt held that the said rules %a! be rela(ed onl! in ;;e(ceptionall! %eritorious cases.& + In this case, the 23 and the private respondents failed to sho# that this case is one such e(ception. FH@R@OR@, the Petition is hereb! 7R3NT@D. The 2ourt of 3ppeals; assailed Resolutions, dated ul! -, //0 and Dece%ber 10, //0, are S@T 3SID@. The Decision of the Re$ional Trial 2ourt of )a!o%bon$, Nueva ViAca!a 4)ranch 1>5 in 2ivil 2ase No. 98+0 is declared IN3B and @G@2TOR. No pronounce%ent as to costs.!wphi"n#t SO ORD@R@D. Melo$ %itug$ Purisima and &onaga(Reyes$ ))"$ concur"
