PHILIPPINE SUPREME
COURT
DECISIONS
FIRST DIVISION
LA SALETTE
COLLEGE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,
FR. ROMEO GONZALES,
MS; AND JESUS T. BAYAUA,
DEAN OF STUDENT
SERVICES,
Petitioners,
G.R.
No.
149227
December 11, 2003
-versus-
VICTOR C. PILOTIN,
Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PANGANIBAN, J.:chanrobles virtual law library
An appeal is not
perfected by the mere filing of a Notice of Appeal that has been served
on the adverse party. The docket fees must likewise be paid within the
reglementary period. Petitioners have failed to show why they merit an
exception to these stringent rules.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Case
Before us is a Petition
for Review[1]
under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court, seeking to set aside the November 16, 2000[2]
and the June 22, 2001 Resolutions[3]
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR CV UDK No. 0236C. The November
16,
2000 Resolution disposed as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"In view of
the foregoing, Appellee's 'Motion for Reconsideration' is GRANTED. The
Resolution, dated March 14, 2000, is hereby RECALLED and SET ASIDE and
the appeal is hereby DISMISSED."[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The June 22, 2001
Resolution
denied reconsideration. The Facts
The facts of the case
are narrated by the trial court[5]
as follows:chanrobles virtual law library
"Respondent
is a bonafide student of petitioner College dating back to the school
year
1988-1989 taking up the degree of Bachelor of Science in Commerce. In
the
enrollment period for the second semester held on October 22 to
November
5, 1993, respondent was denied re-enrollment, despite repeated pleas by
x x x himself and by other interested parties and his
lawyer.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"On November 16,
1993,
he filed his complaint and asked for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary
mandatory injunction to compel petitioner college to re-admit him. On
December
28, 1993, an Order was issued directing petitioner college to admit
respondent
for the second semester but still petitioner college refused to
re-admit
respondent, despite implementation of said order and the pleas of
respondent
thru his counsel so that he could catch up with the bulk of the school
days of the semester and could graduate.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Because of the
adamant
refusal of respondent school in re-admitting him and his defiance to
the
order and because the period of the second semester was already about
to
close, respondent amended his complaint and concentrated on damages,
hence,
this case.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"On the other
hand,
the petitioner college alleged that it opened its enrollment period for
the second semester of school year 1993-1994 on 11 October 1993 up to
22
October, 1993 to 05 November, 1993. However, classes for the second
semester
of that school year commenced on 25 October, 1993. During these periods
for enrollment, respondent never enrolled with the x x x
College
and neither did he accomplish the basic requirements for enrollment.
However,
on 05 November, 1993, the x x x College was in receipt of a
letter from Atty. Quirino L. Pilotin dated on that same date requesting
for a reconsideration of an alleged decision denying enrollment to the
respondent. Upon receipt of the said letter, it was endorsed to
Respondent
Bayaua who in turn wrote Atty. Pilotin explaining among others that was
not denied enrollment but rather the latter did not enroll with the
said
College. Considering, however, that the x x x College
started
its regular classes on 25 October, 1993, in the event respondent was
able
to enroll on 6 November, 1993, he would have then exceeded the required
absences for his supposed enrolled subjects.cralaw:red
"Since plaintiff
failed
to enroll on the last day for enrollment, there is no reason why
the
x x x College should relax its rules to accommodate
respondent.
The x x x College merely imposed its disciplining authority
when it sets dates for the period to enroll and the matter of admission
of students is within the ambit of academic freedom and beyond the
province
of the Courts to decide."[6]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On November 17, 1998,
the
trial court rendered judgment in favor of respondent.[7]
Petitioners received the Decision on November 26, 1998. On the same
date,
they filed a Notice of Appeal, which the RTC approved on December 2,
1998.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent moved for
a reconsideration thereof on the ground of petitioners' failure to pay
the docket fees within the reglementary period. The trial court,
however,
denied the Motion in its April 23, 1999 Order.[8]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Ruling of the
Court
of Appeals
In its November 29,
1999 Resolution, the CA dismissed the appeal of petitioners for their
failure
to pay "the required docketing fee within the period for filing an
appeal."[9]
But, upon their motion, the CA granted, in a Resolution dated March 14,
2000, reconsideration of their appeal, which it reinstated "in the
interest
of substantial justice and considering that petitioners already paid
the
docket fees."[10]
Respondent moved for a reconsideration on March 29, 2000.cralaw:red
After reexamining the
records of the case, the CA, in the challenged November 16, 2000
Resolution,
dismissed the appeal filed by petitioners, because "the docket fees
were
only paid after one (1) year and eleven (11) months from the filing of
the notice of appeal."[11]
It deemed it imperative to reverse the March 14, 2000 Resolution "to
conform
with the law and long settled jurisprudence"[12]
on the matter. Thus, in the June 22, 2001 Resolution, it denied their
Motion
for Reconsideration.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Hence, this Petition.[13]
Issues
Petitioners submit the
following issues for our consideration:chanrobles virtual law library
"1. Whether
or not the appeal was seasonably filed;
"2. With all due
respect,
the Court of Appeals did not have the authority to dismiss the appeal."[14]
In the main, the case
revolves
around the timeliness of the payment of the docket fees. The Court's Ruling
The Petition has no
merit.cralaw:red
Sole Issue: Timeliness
of Payment of Appellate Court Docket Fees
The payment of docket
fees is not a trivial matter. These fees are necessary to defray court
expenses in the handling of cases.[15]
For this reason, and to secure a just and speedy disposition of every
action
and proceeding,[16]
the Rules
on Civil Procedure[17]
mandates the payment of docket and other lawful fees within the
prescribed
period. Otherwise, the jurisdiction of the proper court to handle a
case
is adversely affected.[18]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The above rule applies
squarely to this case, in which the judgment issued by the RTC, in the
exercise of its original jurisdiction, was elevated to the CA for
review.
Rule 41 of the Rules on Civil Procedure provides the essential
requirements
for making such an appeal, as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Sec. 2.
Modes
of appeal. -
"(a)
Ordinary
appeal. - The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the
Regional
Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken
by filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment
or final order appealed from and serving a copy thereof upon the
adverse
party x x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
"Sec. 3. Period of
ordinary
appeal. - The appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from
notice
of the judgment or final order appealed from x x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Sec. 4. Appellate
court
docket and other lawful fees.- Within the period for taking an appeal,
the appellant shall pay to the clerk of court which rendered the
judgment
or final order appealed from, the full amount of the appellate court
docket
and other lawful fees. Proof of payment of said fees shall be
transmitted
to the appellate court together with the original record or the record
on appeal.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Sec. 9.
Perfection
of appeal; effect thereof- A party's appeal by notice of appeal is
deemed
perfected as to him upon the filing of the notice of appeal in due
time.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
"In appeals by
notice
of appeal, the court loses jurisdiction over the case upon the
perfection
of the appeals filed in due time and the expiration of the time to
appeal
of the other parties.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
Accordingly, in order
to
perfect an appeal from a decision rendered by the RTC in the exercise
of
its original jurisdiction, the following requirements must be complied
with. First, within 15 days, a notice of appeal must be filed with the
court that rendered the judgment or final order sought to be appealed;
second, such notice must be served on the adverse party; and third,
within
the same 15-day period, the full amount of appellate court docket and
other
legal fees must be paid to the clerk of the court that rendered the
judgment
or final order.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It should be noted that
full payment of the appellate docket fees within the prescribed period
is mandatory,[19]
even jurisdictional,[20]
for the perfection of the appeal. Otherwise, the appellate court would
not be able to act on the subject matter of the action,[21]
and the decision or final order sought to be appealed from would become
final and executory.[22]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the present case,
petitioners insist that they seasonably paid the docket fees. After
resolving
thrice the timeliness of the payment of the docket fees, the CA finally
found that these had been paid one (1) year and 11 days from the filing
of their notice of appeal.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
To recapitulate, on
November 26, 1998, petitioners received the November 17, 1998 RTC
Decision.
Consequently, they had 15 days to file their Notice of Appeal. They did
so on November 26, 1998, but failed to pay the docket fees. A review of
the records shows that they paid these only on July 8, 1999,[23]
or after almost seven (7) months from the mandated last day for
payment,
which was December 11, 1998. Clearly, the November 17, 1998 RTC
Decision,
which petitioners sought to appeal, had long become final and
executory.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Relaxation of
the Rule on Nonpayment of Docket Fees
Notwithstanding the
mandatory nature of the requirement of payment of appellate docket
fees,
we also recognize that its strict application is qualified by the
following:
first, failure to pay those fees within the reglementary period allows
only discretionary, not automatic, dismissal; second, such power should
be used by the court in conjunction with its exercise of sound
discretion
in accordance with the tenets of justice and fair play, as well as with
a great deal of circumspection in consideration of all attendant
circumstances.[24]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In Mactan Cebu International
Airport Authority v. Mangubat,[25]
the payment of the docket fees was delayed by six (6) days, but the
late
payment was accepted, because the party showed willingness to abide by
the Rules by immediately paying those fees. Yambao v. Court of Appeals[26]
saw us again relaxing the Rules when we declared therein that "the
appellate
court may extend the time for the payment of the docket fees if
appellant
is able to show that there is a justifiable reason for x x
x the failure to pay the correct amount of docket fees within the
prescribed
period, like fraud, accident, mistake, excusable negligence, or a
similar
supervening casualty, without fault on the part of the appellant."[27]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the present case,
petitioners have not shown any satisfactory reason to warrant the
relaxation
of the Rules. In fact, the manner in which they presented their case
before
us leaves too much to be desired. Indeed, we are almost tempted to say
that they tried to mislead - nay, deceive - this Court as well as the
appellate
court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The present case calls
for the adjudication of whether petitioners paid the docket fees on
time.
Hence, it is essential that they specify the exact dates when they
filed
their notice of appeal and paid the corresponding docket fees. But
nowhere
in their pleadings did they do so. All they said was that the appeal
had
been seasonably filed.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In accordance with the
requisites for the perfection of an appeal as enumerated earlier,
petitioners
should have (1) filed a notice of appeal with the RTC of Santiago,
Isabela,
within 15 days from the issuance of the trial court Decision being
appealed;
(2) paid the docket fees within the same period; and (3) served the
notice
to the adverse party. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
True, petitioners filed
their Notice of Appeal within the prescribed period, but they paid the
docket fees only seven (7) months thereafter. They adamantly insisted
on
page 6 of their Petition[28]
that "the appeal was seasonably filed," but later said that the "the
appeal
fee was paid immediately after 23 April 1999 when the court a quo
denied
the respondent's motion for reconsideration and approved the appeal
x
x x. With the foregoing therefore, the notice
of
appeal was seasonably filed with the payment of docket fees on time."[29]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
They admitted, though,
that because of the "excusable negligence or mistake" of their counsel,
the official receipts for the Notice of Appeal had not been attached.
They
reasoned that they had failed to transmit the proof of payment of the
docket
fees to the CA, because such "provision of civil procedure was
relatively
new x x x
at
that time."[30]
At any event, respondent denies being served such notice.[31]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Assuming arguendo that
the period of appeal was interrupted by respondent's motion for
reconsideration
of the RTC's approval of petitioners' notice of appeal, the required
docket
fees for the latter were still not paid on time. From November 23,
1998,
when petitioners filed their Notice of Appeal, until April 23, 1999,
when
the trial court approved it with finality, they made no effort to pay
those
fees. It took them more than two (2) months to "immediately pay" the
docket
fees after being informed of the April 23, 1999 Order denying
respondent's
motion for reconsideration of the RTC Order approving petitioners'
Notice
of Appeal. This lapse of time hardly reflected sincere willingness to
abide
by the Rules, especially when respondent had raised the very issue of
nonpayment
of docket fees as early as December 28, 1998.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On this point, petitioners'
counsel is reminded of the role that lawyers play in the dispensation
of
justice. Bayas v. Sandiganbayan[32]
held thus:chanrobles virtual law library
"Lawyers
are
not merely representatives of the parties but, first and foremost,
officers
of the court. As such, one of their duties - assisting in the speedy
and
efficient administration of justice - is more significant than that of
[the cause of] their client, rightly or wrongly
x
x x. We stress that candor in all dealings is
the
very essence of membership in the legal profession. Lawyers are obliged
to observe rules of procedure in good faith, not to misuse them to
defeat
the ends of justice."[33]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We stress that the
payment
of docket fees is not a mere technicality of law or procedure, but an
essential
requirement for the perfection of an appeal.[34]
Without such payment, the appellate court does not acquire jurisdiction
over the subject matter of the action, and the decision or final order
sought to be appealed from becomes final and executory.[35]
As laid down in Barangay 24 of Legazpi City v. Imperial:[36]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"The right
to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process. It is purely
a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in
accordance
with the provisions of the law. Well-rooted is the principle that
perfection
of an appeal within the statutory or reglementary period is not only
mandatory
but also jurisdictional and failure to do so renders the questioned
decision
final and executory, and deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction
to
alter the final judgment much less to entertain the appeal."[37]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the Petition
is hereby DENIED and the assailed Resolutions AFFIRMED. Costs against
petitioners. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J., Ynares-Santiago,
Carpio and Azcuna, JJ., concur.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
____________________________
Endnotes:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
[1]
Rollo, pp. 4–15.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Id., pp. 16–17. Former Third Division. Penned by Justice Candido V.
Rivera,
with the concurrence of Justices Cancio C. Garcia (Division chairman)
and
Edgardo P. Cruz (member).
[3]
Id., pp. 18–19.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Id., p. 17.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Judge Demetrio D. Calimag Jr. of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Santiago
City (Branch 35).
[6]
See RTC Decision, pp. 1–2; rollo, pp. 26–27.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Id., pp. 10–11 & 35–36.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Rollo, p. 37.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Id., p. 38.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Id., p. 39.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
P. 2; rollo, p. 17.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Id., pp. 1 & 16.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
This case was deemed submitted for resolution on July 30, 2002, upon
this
Court's receipt of petitioners' Memorandum signed by Atty. Jezarene C.
Aquino. Respondent's Memorandum, signed by Atty. Quirico L. Pilotin,
was
received by this Court on July 5, 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Petitioners' Memorandum, p. 3; rollo, p. 105.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Emnace v. Court of Appeals, 370 SCRA 431, November 23, 2001.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
§6 of Rule 1 of the Rules of Court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Effective July 1, 1997.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
See Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. (SIOL) v. Asuncion, 170 SCRA 274, 285,
February
13, 1989; Pedrosa v. Spouses Hill, 327 Phil. 153, June 14, 1996.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
Alfonso v. Spouses Andres, GR No. 139611, October 4, 2002; Manalili v.
De Leon, 370 SCRA 625, November 27, 2001; Buenaflor v. Court of
Appeals,
346 SCRA 563, November 29, 2000.
[20]
Alfonso v. Spouses Andres, supra; Siy Chin et al. v. Court of Appeals,
345 SCRA 673, November 23, 2000; Ayala Land, Inc. v. Spouses Carpo, 345
SCRA 579, November 22, 2000; Pedrosa v. Spouses Hill, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
Section 1 (c) of Rule 50 of the Rules of Court provides:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Section 1. Grounds for dismissal of appeal. — An appeal may be
dismissed
by the Court of Appeals, on its own motion or on that of the appellee,
on the following grounds:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
x x
x
x x
x
x x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"(c) Failure of the appellant to pay the docket and other lawful fees
as
provided in section 4 of Rule 41;
x x
x
x x
x
x x x"chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
Alfonso v. Spouses Andres, supra; Yambao v. Court of Appeals, 346 SCRA
141, November 27, 2000.
[23]
Official Receipt Nos. 8340852 and 8341474; CA rollo, pp. 13 & 14.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
Buenaflor v. Court of Appeals, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
371 Phil. 393, August 16, 1999.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
Supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
Id., p. 147, per Gonzaga-Reyes, J.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[28]
Rollo, p. 9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[29]
Id., pp. 9–10.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[30]
Petitioners' Memorandum, p. 4; rollo, p. 106.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[31]
Comment, p. 2; rollo, p. 58.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[32]
GR Nos. 143689–91, November 12, 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[33]
Pp. 19–20, per Panganiban, J.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[34]
Alfonso v. Spouses Andres, supra; Siy Chin et al. v. Court of Appeals,
supra; Ayala Land, Inc. v. Spouses Carpo, supra; Pedrosa v. Spouses
Hill,
supra.
[35]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[36]
338 SCRA 694, August 24, 2000.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[37]
Id., p. 702, per Gonzaga-Reyes, J.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Back
to Top - Back
to Main Index - Back
to Table of Contents -2003 SC Decisions
- Back
to Home
|