CrimPro Lazaro V CA

[G.R. No. 137761.
April 6, 2000] almost six (6) months after the last day to file notice of appeal.
However, appellants prayed that this Court's June 17, 1998
GABRIEL LAZARO and the heirs of FLORENCIA PINEDA and EVA resolution be set aside, lifted, and this appeal reinstated, citing
VIERNES, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and Spouses JOSE
interest of substantial justice.
and ANITA ALESNA, respondents.
"In the light of the foregoing, appellants' June 26, 1998 motion is
Failure to pay docket and other lawful fees within the prescribed
hereby GRANTED."[2]
period is a ground for the dismissal of an appeal. This rule cannot be
suspended by the mere invocation of "the interest of substantial In its second Resolution, the CA denied reconsideration in this wise:
justice." Procedural rules may be relaxed only in exceptionally
"For all the foregoing, there being no cogent or compelling reason
meritorious cases.
to warrant reconsideration of this court's resolution dated July 31,
The Case 1998, the motion of appellees is hereby DENIED."
Before us is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 assailing two The Facts
Resolution, dated July 31, 1998 and December 28, 1998, both
promulgated by the Court of Appeals[1] (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. Before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya
(Branch 27), Spouses Jose and Anita Alesna, private respondents
60094. In the first Resolution, the CA ruled:
herein, filed a civil action for annulment of title, reconveyance and
"For resolution is a motion to reconsider this Court's Resolution damages (with prayer for preliminary injunction)[4] against
dismissing the appeal for failure of appellants [herein private Petitioners Gabriel Lazaro and the heirs of Florencia Pineda and Eva
respondents] to pay the prescribed docketing fees pursuant to Viernes.
Section 4, Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure.
After trial, the RTC rendered judgment in favor of the petitioners.
"x x x x x x x x x Thereafter, the private respondents filed a Notice of Appeal before
the trial court.[5]
"Copy of the judgment appealed from was received by appellants
on December 16, 1997 and their notice of appeal was filed on In a Resolution dated June 17, 1998, the CA[6] dismissed the appeal
December 19, 1997. for failure of herein private respondents to pay the required docket
fees within the prescribed period. Thereafter, it issued its first
"The motion for reconsideration of this Court's Resolution was filed assailed Resolution dated July 31, 1998 granting their Motion for
on time, but the attached official receipt No. 2768290 evidencing
Reconsideration and reinstating the appeal.
payment of the required docketing fees was dated June 26, 1998,
Subsequently, the petitioners also filed their own Motion for The Rules of Court, as amended, specifically provides that appellate
Reconsideration assailing the said Resolution. As earlier stated, the court docket and other lawful fees should be paid within the period
CA denied their Motion. for taking an appeal. Hence, Section 4 of Rule 41 reads:
Hence, this Petition. "Section 4. Appellate court docket and other lawful fees. -- Within
the period for taking an appeal,[9] the appellant shall pay to the
Ruling of the Court of Appeals clerk of the court which rendered the judgment or final order
In reinstating the appeal despite the failure of herein private appealed from, the full amount of the appellate court docket and
respondents to pay the docket fees within the prescribed period, other lawful fees. Proof of payment of said fees shall be transmitted
the Court of Appeals invoked "the interest of substantial justice." It to the appellate court together with the original record or the
did not elaborate however. No specific circumstance or any other record on appeal."
explanation was cited in support of its ruling. Contrary to the submission of private respondents that the
Issue aforecited rule is merely directory, the payment of the docket and
other legal fees within the prescribed period is both mandatory and
In their memorandum, petitioners submit for the consideration of jurisdictional. Section 1 (c), Rule 50 of the Rules of Court provides:
the Court this lone question: "x x x [H]as the respondent appellate "Failure of the appellant to pay the docket and other fees as
court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, and/or with grave provided in Section 4 of Rule 41" is a ground for the dismissal of the
abuse of discretion in issuing the questioned Resolutions dated July appeal. Indeed, it has been held that failure of the appellant to
31, 1998 and December 28, 1998"? conform with the rules on appeal renders the judgment final and
executory. Verily, the right to appeal is a statutory right and one
This Court's Ruling
who seeks to avail of that right must comply with the statute or the
The Petition is meritorious. rule.
In the present case, the private respondents failed to pay the

required docket fees within the reglementary period. In fact, the
Main Issue: Timely Payment of CA Docket Fees Court notes that they paid the fees only after the CA had dismissed
the appeal, or six months after the filing of the Notice of Appeal.
Clearly, existing jurisprudence and the Rules mandate that the
appeal should be dismissed.
The appellate court nonetheless reinstated the appeal "in the the CA and the private respondents failed to show that this case is
interest of substantial justice." But as earlier observed, it did not one such exception.
cite any specific circumstance or any other explanation in support of
its ruling. For their part, private respondents failed to offer a WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby GRANTED. The Court of Appeals'
satisfactory explanation why they paid the docket fees six months assailed Resolutions, dated July 31, 1998 and December 28, 1998,
after the prescribed period. Indeed, neither they nor the Court of are SET ASIDE. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Appeals showed fraud, accident, mistake, excusable negligence, or Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya (Branch 27) in Civil Case No.4058 is
declared FINAL and EXECUTORY. No pronouncement as to costs.
any other reason to justify the suspension of the aforecited rule.
We must stress that the bare invocation of "the interest of SO ORDERED.

substantial justice" is not a magic wand that will automatically
compel this Court to suspend procedural rules. "Procedural rules
are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-
observance may have resulted in prejudice to a party's substantive
rights. Like all rules, they are required to be followed except only for
the most persuasive of reasons when they may be relaxed to relieve
a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his
thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure
prescribed."[13] The Court reiterates that rules of procedure,
especially those prescribing the time within which certain acts must
be done, "have oft been held as absolutely indispensable to the
prevention of needless delays and to the orderly and speedy
discharge of business. x x x The reason for rules of this nature is
because the dispatch of business by courts would be impossible,
and intolerable delays would result, without rules governing
practice x x x. Such rules are a necessary incident to the proper,
efficient and orderly discharge of judicial functions."[14] Indeed, in
no uncertain terms, the Court held that the said rules may be
relaxed only in "exceptionally meritorious cases."[15] In this case,

CrimPro Lazaro V CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CrimPro Lazaro V CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CrimPro Lazaro V CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[G.R. No. 137761.

In the present case, the private respondents failed to pay the

We must stress that the bare invocation of "the interest of SO ORDERED.

You might also like