Lee vs. Land Bank of The Philippines

Lee vs.
Land Bank of the Philippines

784 SCRA 342, February 17, 2016
FACTS:
After due proceedings, the RTC, sitting as a SAC, rendered a Decision10 dated January 17, 2002
rejecting the valuation given by respondent and setting the just compensation for petitioners'
1.5073 has. at P250.00 per square meter.
Respondent's motion for reconsideration was denied in an Order dated June 14, 2002.
Several years later, or sometime in September 2006, petitioners filed a motion for execution of
the RTC's Decision, Respondent denied petitioners' claim and asserted that it filed a Notice of
Appeal in accordance with the rules and has, therefore, perfected its appeal. As such, the RTC's
Decision was not yet final and executory.
RTC, in an Order, gave due course to respondent's appeal and directed that the entire records
thereof be transmitted to the CA.
Petitioners moved for reconsideration, which the RTC denied.
Almost five (5) years later, or on April 26, 2013, petitioners filed a motion to dismiss. In its
defense, respondent argued that the RTC no longer had jurisdiction to entertain petitioners'
motion after its Notice of Appeal had been given due course. It maintained that petitioners'
motion should have been filed not before the RTC, but before the CA.
RTC granted petitioners' motion and accordingly, dismissed respondent's appeal for failure to
prosecute. Upon a meticulous inspection of the records, the RTC found that respondent failed to
pay the prescribed appeal fees.
Respondent's motion for reconsideration was denied.
CA found grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC in dismissing respondent's appeal for
failure to prosecute, holding that the validity of the latter's appeal had already been passed upon
in the RTC's earlier Orders dated June 7, 2007 and August 27, 2008 that gave due course to the
appeal and directed the transmittal of the records to the CA. It also ruled that upon the perfection
of respondent's appeal, the RTC had already lost jurisdiction over the case.
ISSUE:
The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA erred in finding grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the RTC when it dismissed respondent's appeal for failure to prosecute.
RULING:
Yes. SC held that the RTC retained jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal is beyond cavil, as provided
under Section 9, Rule 41 above quoted. As a result of respondent’s failure to perfect an appeal
within the period fixed by law, no court could exercise appellate jurisdiction to review the RTC
decision. To reiterate, perfection of an appeal within the period and in the manner prescribed by
law is jurisdictional and noncompliance with such requirements is considered fatal and has the
effect of rendering the judgment final and executory. It bears to stress that the right to appeal is a
statutory right and the one who seeks to avail that right must comply with the statute or rules.
In Gipa v. Southern Luzon Institute, 726 SCRA 559 (2014), citing Gonzales v. Pe, 655 SCRA
176 (2011), the Court clarified the requirement of full payment of docket and other lawful fees
under the above quoted rule in this wise: [T]he procedural requirement under Section 4 of
Rule 41 is not merely directory, as the payment of the docket and other legal fees within the
prescribed period is both mandatory and jurisdictional. It bears stressing that an appeal is not
a right, but a mere statutory privilege. An ordinary appeal from a decision or final order of the
RTC to the CA must be made within 15 days from notice. And within this period, the full
amount of the appellate court docket and other lawful fees must be paid to the clerk of the court
which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from. The requirement of paying the full
amount of the appellate docket fees within the prescribed period is not a mere technicality of law
or procedure. The payment of docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory for the
perfection of an appeal. Without such payment, the appeal is not perfected. The appellate
court does not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action and the Decision
sought to be appealed from becomes final and executory. Further, under Section 1(c), Rule
50, an appeal may be dismissed by the CA, on its own motion or on that of the appellee, on the
ground of the nonpayment of the docket and other lawful fees within the reglementary period as
provided under Section 4 of Rule 41. The payment of the full amount of the docket fee is an
indispensable step for the perfection of an appeal. In both original and appellate cases, the court
acquires jurisdiction over the case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fees.

Lee vs. Land Bank of The Philippines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lee vs. Land Bank of The Philippines

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Lee vs. Land Bank of The Philippines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lee vs.

Land Bank of the Philippines

You might also like