11/17/2016 G.R.No.

174193

RepublicofthePhilippines
SupremeCourt
Manila

FIRSTDIVISION

SAMUEL JULIAN, represented by G.R.No.174193
his
AttorneyinFact,ROBERTODELA
CRUZ,
Petitioner, Present:

CORONA,C.J.,Chairperson,
versus LEONARDODECASTRO,
BERSAMIN,
DELCASTILLO,and
DEVELOPMENTBANKOFTHE VILLARAMA,JR.,JJ.
PHILIPPINESandTHECITY
SHERIFF, Promulgated:
Respondents. December7,2011
xx


DECISION


DELCASTILLO,J.:

Therequirementofanappealfeeisnotameretechnicalityoflaworprocedureandshouldnot
bedisregardedwithoutthemostcompellingofreasons.

[1] [2]
BeforeusisaPetitionforReviewonCertiorari oftheResolution oftheCourtofAppeals
(CA)inCAG.R.CVNo.00240datedApril12,2005whichdismissedpetitionersappealasfollows:

ConsideringthatperJRDReportdatedMarch30,2005,theappellantfailedtopaytherequired
docketandotherlawfulfees,theinstantAppealisherebyDISMISSEDpursuanttoSection[1](c)Rule50
ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/december2011/174193.htm 1/12
11/17/2016 G.R.No.174193

[3]
SOORDERED.
[4]
Also assailed is the CAs Resolution dated July 27, 2006 which denied the Motion for
Reconsiderationthereto.

PetitionerseekstoreversetheaforesaidResolutionsoftheCAanddirectthelattertoadmitthepayment
[5]
forthedocketfeesenclosedinhisMotionforReconsideration sothathisappealmaybegivendue
course,or,inthealternative,toremandthecasetothecourtaquoforfurtherproceedings.

FactualAntecedents

[6]
This case stemmed from a Real Estate Mortgage executed by Thelma Julian (Thelma),
motherofhereinpetitionerSamuelJulian,overapropertysituatedinFuentesSubdivision,RoxasCity
[7]
coveredbyTransferCertificateofTitle(TCT)No.T16705.

[8]
OnDecember23,1980, ThelmaobtainedahousingloanfromrespondentDevelopmentBank
[9]
ofthePhilippines(DBP)intheamountofP99,400.00. Tosecurepaymentoftheloan,sheexecuted
infavoroftherespondentaRealEstateMortgageontheaforementionedparceloflandregisteredunder
hername.ASpecialPowerofAttorney(SPA)appointingtherespondentanditspersonneltosellthe
propertyintheeventofextrajudicialforeclosurewasinsertedandmadeanintegralpartofthemortgage
[10]
contract.

[11]
Subsequently,ThelmadiedonJanuary8,1982.

Becauseofarrearagesinthemonthlyamortizations,respondentforeclosed
[12]
themortgagedproperty.SamewassoldatpublicauctiononSeptember15,1983 withrespondent
[13]
asthehighestbidder. Noredemptionhavingbeenmade,titletothepropertywasconsolidatedin
[14] [15]
favoroftherespondentonSeptember21,1984 andTCTNo.T19303 wasthereafterissuedin
itsname.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/december2011/174193.htm 2/12
11/17/2016 G.R.No.174193

Thereafter,theactualoccupantsofthemortgagedproperty,spousesRamondelaCruzandhis
wife, who is likewise petitioners sibling, Ruth Julian de la Cruz (spouses De la Cruz), offered to
[16]
purchasetheproperty.RespondentacceptedtheofferandexecutedaDeedofConditionalSale on
[17]
October31,1985.However,spousesDelaCruzfailedtopay 72monthlyamortizationsresultingin
therescissionofthesaiddeedonFebruary28,1992.Notwithstanding,spousesDelaCruzrefusedto
vacatethepremisescompellingrespondenttofileanUnlawfulDetainercaseagainstthemonFebruary
[18]
23,1993.JudgmentwasrenderedinfavorofrespondentonJuly29,1993.

[19]
However,beforetheWritofExecutioncouldbecarriedout, petitionerfiledCivilCaseNo.
[20] [21]
6387 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Roxas City on October 27, 1993, for the
cancellationofrespondentsTCTNo.T19303.HecontendedthattheSPAwhichwasusedtosellthe
mortgagedpropertyatpublicauctionin1983wasnolongereffectiveinviewofThelmasdeathin1982.
[22]
Consequently,thepublicauction,theresultingDeedofSale, AffidavitofConsolidationandTCT
No.T19303arenullandvoid.

[23]
Duringthecourseoftheproceedings,aseriesofpostponements were
madeattheinstanceofbothpartiesduetoanimpendingamicablesettlement.Eventually,theparties
[24]
wereabletoreachasettlement.Thus,inanOrder datedOctober28,1998,theRTCdirectedboth
parties to submit a joint motion to dismiss the case. However, almost two years passed without the
partiescomplyingwiththesaidOrder.

[25]
Consequently,inanOrder datedOctober11,2000,theRTCdismissedthecaseforfailureof
thepartiestocomplyforanunreasonablelengthoftime.Thedismissal,however,wassetasideinan
[26]
Order dated February 12, 2003 in consideration of petitioners payment of ten percent (10%) of
respondents claim. The parties were then given 15 days from notice within which to submit their
[27] [28]
compromiseagreement, whichwassubsequentlyextendedfor30daysfromnotice. Despitethe
[29]
extensions,however,nocompromiseagreementwasfiledincourt.Asaresult,inanOrder dated
July24,2003,thetrialcourtdirectedthepartiestoshowcausewithin15daysfromnoticewhythecase

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/december2011/174193.htm 3/12
11/17/2016 G.R.No.174193

shouldnotbedismissedforfailuretoprosecute.Meanwhile,withpetitionersconformity,hiscounsel
[30]
withdrewherappearanceonAugust13,2003.

RulingoftheRegionalTrialCourt

OnJanuary28,2004orsixmonthsfromtheissuanceoftheshowcauseOrder,thetrialcourt
[31]
dismissedthecaseinanOrder whichstates:

ForfailureofthepartiesthrucounseltocomplywiththeOrderdatedJuly24,2003,theinstant
caseisherebyDISMISSED.

SOORDERED.


[32]
Petitioner,throughhisnewcounsel,timelyfiledaNoticeofAppeal onApril26,2004but
failedtopaythedocketandotherlawfulfees.

RulingoftheCourtofAppeals

Asearliermentioned,theCAdismissedtheappealfornonpaymentoftherequireddocketand
[33]
otherlawfulfeespursuanttoSection1(c),Rule50oftheRulesofCourt.
[34]
Seeking reconsideration, petitioner attached to his motion Postal Money Order Nos. A
[35]
0620000276,B0610000283andJ065000566intheaggregateamountofP3,020.00 aspayment
forthedocketfees.Heexplainedthathisfailuretopaytherequiredfeeswasduetooversightandnon
cognizance of the necessity to pay the said fees since his counsel did not inform him of such
requirementtopay.PetitionerprayedforliberalapplicationoftheRulesasaccordingtohim,astrict
enforcementwouldbetantamounttoimposingapenaltynotcommensuratetohisthoughtlessnessor
[36]
oversightinnotadheringtotheproceduralrequisite.

PetitionerssubmissiondidnotmovetheCA,whichdisposedofhismotionforreconsiderationthrough
[37]
itssecondassailedResolution thus:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/december2011/174193.htm 4/12
11/17/2016 G.R.No.174193

In the case of Meatmaster International Corporation vs. Lelis Integrated Development

Corporation,itwasheldthatthepaymentofdocketfeeswithintheprescribedperiodismandatory
fortheperfectionofanappeal.Thisissobecauseacourtacquiresjurisdictionoverthesubjectmatterof
theactiononlyuponthepaymentofthecorrectamountofdocketfeesregardlessoftheactualdateof
filing of the case in court. The payment of the full amount of the docket fee is sine qua non for the
perfection of an appeal. The court acquires jurisdiction over the case only upon the payment of the
prescribeddocketfees.

Verily,therequirementofanappealfeeisnotameretechnicalityoflaworprocedurebutanessential
requirementwithoutwhichthedecisionappealedfromwouldbecomefinalandexecutoryasifnoappeal
wasfiledatall.Thus,ifWeallowbelatedpaymentasprayedforandreinstatetheinstantappeal,itwill
havetheeffectofwithholdingthefinalityofthejudgmentororderappealedfrom.

Procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their nonobservance may have
resultedinprejudicetoapartyssubstantiverights.Likeallrules,theyarerequiredtobefollowedexcept
onlyforthemostpersuasiveofreasonswhentheymayberelaxedtorelievealitigantofaninjusticenot
proportionatewiththedegreeofhisthoughtlessnessinnotcomplyingwiththeprocedureprescribed.

InhisMotionforReconsideration,appellanthasnotshownweightyandpersuasivereasonstocompelUs
toexerciseOurdiscretionofsuspendingthestrictadherencetotheRules.Otherthanhisflimsyexcuse
thatthegroundintheCourtsResolutionismerelytechnical,appellanthasmiserablyfailedtoproffera
convincingjustificationfor[his]proceduralerror.Thus,appellantfailedtojustifywhytheRulesshouldbe
relaxed and [why] the equitable consideration of the Court should be exercised in his situation as an
exceptiontothestrictimplementationoftheRules.

INVIEWTHEREOF,theMotionforReconsiderationisherebyDENIEDandtheResolutiondatedApril
12,2005MAINTAINED.

[38]
SOORDERED.


Issues

Petitioner comes before this Court by way of Petition for Review on Certiorari raising the
followingissues:

A.
WHETHERXXXTHEDISMISSALOFTHETRIALCOURT[WAS]PROPER.

B.
WHETHERXXXTHECOURTOFAPPEALSERREDINAPPLYINGSTRICTLYTHERULES
[39]
ONDOCKETFEES.


ThepivotalissueiswhethertheCAwascorrectinstrictlyapplyingtherulesonthepaymentof
docketfees.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/december2011/174193.htm 5/12
11/17/2016 G.R.No.174193

Petitioneracknowledgesthemandatorynatureoftherulethatdocketandotherlawfulfeesmustbepaid
infullwithintheprescribedperiodforanappealtobeperfected.However,heassertsthatthebroader
interestofjusticeandthedesiredobjectiveofdecidingthecaseonthemeritscallforleniencyinthe
applicationoftherules.Hence,hemustbegivenanopportunitytoairhiscausewithouttheconstraints
of technicalities. Petitioner contends that the CA should apply the pronouncement of this Court in
[40]
Yambaov.CourtofAppeals relaxingthepolicyofstrictadherencetotheruleregardingappealfees
if justifiable reason for the nonpayment of the correct amount of docket fees within the prescribed
periodisshown.HefurthercontendsthathisactofattachingthepaymentforthefeestohisMotionfor
Reconsiderationshowshisintentionandwillingnesstocomplywiththerules.

OurRuling

Thepetitionlacksmerit.

Payment of full docket fees within the prescribed period for
takinganappealismandatory.


Itiswellestablishedthat[t]herighttoappealisastatutoryprivilegeandmustbeexercisedonly
[41]
inthemannerandinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofthelaw. Thus,onewhoseekstoavailofthe
righttoappealmuststrictlycomplywiththerequirementsoftherules,andfailuretodosoleadstothe
[42]
lossoftherighttoappeal.
TheapplicableruleforappealsfromjudgmentsissuedbytheRTCintheexerciseofitsoriginal
jurisdictionisRule41oftheRulesofCourt,Section4ofwhichprovides:

Section4.Appellatecourtdocketandotherlawfulfees.Withintheperiodfortakinganappeal,
theappellantshallpaytotheclerkofthecourtwhichrenderedthejudgmentorfinalorderappealedfrom,
thefullamountoftheappellatecourtdocketandotherlawfulfees.Proofofpaymentofsaidfeesshallbe
transmittedtotheappellatecourttogetherwiththeoriginalrecordortherecordonappeal.


TheRulesalsoprovidethatfailureoftheappellanttopaythedocketandotherlawfulfeesisa
[43]
groundfordismissaloftheappeal.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/december2011/174193.htm 6/12
11/17/2016 G.R.No.174193

TheCourthasconsistentlyruledinanumberofcasesthatthepaymentofthefullamountof
[44]
docketfeeswithintheprescribedperiodisbothmandatoryandjurisdictional. Itisaconditionsine
[45]
quanonfortheappealtobeperfectedandonlythencanacourtacquirejurisdictionoverthecase.
The requirement of an appeal fee is not a mere technicality of law or procedure and should not be
undermined except for the most persuasive of reasons. Nonobservance would be tantamount to no
appealbeingfiledtherebyrenderingthechallengeddecision,resolutionororderfinalandexecutory.

Admittedly, this rule is not without recognized qualifications. The Court has declared that in
appealedcases,failuretopaytheappellatecourtdocketfeewithintheprescribedperiodwarrantsonly
discretionaryasopposedtoautomaticdismissaloftheappealandthatthecourtshallexerciseitspower
todismissinaccordancewiththetenetsofjusticeandfairplayandwithgreatdealofcircumspection
[46]
consideringallattendantcircumstances.
Inthecaseatbench,thejustificationspresentedbypetitionerforthenonpaymentofthedocketfeesare
oversight and the lack of advice from his counsel. Unfortunately, the reasons presented are neither
convincing nor adequate to merit leniency. Petitioner submits that he only found out about the
requirementtopaythedocketfeeswhenhereceivedtheCAResolutiondenyinghisappealonApril22,
2005 or three days short of one year from filing of the said appeal. This Court finds this not to be
logically true to human experience. It is unusual for petitioners counsel not to advice him of the
requireddocketfees.Moreoftenthannot,counselsareawareofthedocketfeesrequiredtobepaidto
thecourts,andwillaskclientsforthesaidamountpriortofilingpleadingsincourt.Thisissobecause
counselsarenotexpectedtoshoulderoradvancepaymentfortheirclients.Assumingarguendothat
petitionerscounseldidnotinformhimoftherequirementtopaythedocketfeestoperfecttheappeal,
whatwefindincredibleisthatpetitionerapparentlyfailedtocommunicatewithhiscounselafterthe
filingofsaidappeal.ThisCourthasrepeatedlyheldthatlitigants,representedbycounsel,shouldnot
[47]
expectthatalltheyneedtodoissitback,relaxandawaittheoutcomeoftheircase. Itisthedutyof
a partylitigant to be in contact with his counsel from time to time in order to be informed of the
[48]
progressofhiscase. Moreover,thecounselsnegligencebindspetitionerand,forthatreasonalone
[49]
thelossofhisremedywascausedbyhisownnegligence. Consequently,arelaxationoftherule
[50]
cannotbegranted. Thebitterconsequenceofsuchgraveinadvertenceistorenderthetrialcourts
[51]
orderfinalandexecutory.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/december2011/174193.htm 7/12
11/17/2016 G.R.No.174193

Further, the Court notes that petitioner only attempted to perfect his appeal on May 6, 2005 by
appendingthepostalmoneyorderstohisMotionforReconsideration,oroneyearandninedaystoo
[52]
late. Bythattime,thechallenged

[53]
Orderhaslongbecomefinalandnolongeropentoanappeal.

[54]
Petitioners reliance on the policy espoused in the case of Yambao is likewise unavailing. The
pertinentportionreliedonbypetitionerreads:

Thus,theappellatecourtmayextendthetimeforthepaymentofthedocketfeesifappellantisableto
showthatthereisajustifiablereasonforhisfailuretopaythecorrectamountofdocketfeeswithinthe
prescribedperiod,likefraud,accident,mistake,excusablenegligence,orasimilarsuperveningcasualty,
[55]
withoutfaultonthepartoftheappellant.xxx (Emphasissupplied.)


Clearly,thecaseappliestoasituationwherepaymentofthedocketfeeswasmadealbeitincomplete.In
theinstantcase,nopaymentwasmadebypetitioneratall.EvenassumingarguendothatYambaois
applicabletopetitionerscase,still,theCourtseesnojustifiablereasontoallowthisCourttorelaxthe
strictapplicationoftheRules.

Likewiseassumingforthesakeofargumentthatconsiderationbegiventopetitionerswillingnessto
comply with the rules since he attached postal money orders to his motion for reconsideration, the
broader interest of justice will still not be served if petitioners appeal is reinstated. On one hand,
petitionercallsforleniencytoenablehimtoestablishhiscase.Ontheotherhandisrespondent,which
hasbeenembroiledinadecadeslongwaitinggame.Thelongrunningdisputecouldberecappedthus:
(1) petitioners predecessorininterest, Thelma, obtained a loan from respondent secured by a Real
Estate Mortgage on the subject property (2) Thelma was unable to pay the loan thereby causing
foreclosureoftheRealEstateMortgage(3)petitionerfiledhiscivilactiontoquestionthevalidityof
thepublicauctionsaleonlyonOctober27,1993or10yearsafterthesalewasconductedand,(4)from
thetimeoftheconsolidationoftitleinthenameofrespondentin1984untilthepresent,spousesDela
Cruzhavebeeninpossessionoftheforeclosedproperty.
PetitionerandhissisterRuthJuliandelaCruz(Ruth)knowthattheirmotherThelmahasalreadylost
ownershiprightstothepropertyinquestionwhenthelatterdefaultedinherpaymenttorespondentand

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/december2011/174193.htm 8/12
11/17/2016 G.R.No.174193

noneofhersuccessorsininterestredeemedthepropertywithintheprescribedperiod.Thisisthereason
whyRuthandherhusbandofferedtopurchasethepropertyfromrespondent.However,whenthesaid
spousesDelaCruzdefaultedintheirpayment,theyrefusedtosurrenderthepropertytorespondent.For
hispart,petitionerreinforcessuchrefusaltosurrenderbyquestioningthevalidityofthepublicauction
sale.

Now petitioner comes before this Court praying for leniency in the interest of justice. It must be
stressed,however,thatitisonlywhenpersuasivereasonsexistthattheRulesmayberelaxedtosparea
[56]
litigantofaninjusticenotcommensuratewithhisfailuretocomplywiththeprescribedprocedure.
Here,theCourtfindsthatpetitionerisundernothreatofsufferinganinjustice.Onthecontrary,itwill
betheheightofinjusticeiftheCourtaccordspetitionerleniencyandreinstateshisappealasthiswould
meanfurtherwaitingonthepartoftherespondentwhichhaslongbeendeprivedofitsrighttopossess
thepropertyitowns.

WHEREFORE,thepetitionisDENIED.TheResolutionsoftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.CV
No.00240datedApril12,2005andJuly27,2006areAFFIRMED.

SOORDERED.



MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:



RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice
Chairperson



TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO LUCASP.BERSAMIN

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/december2011/174193.htm 9/12
11/17/2016 G.R.No.174193

AssociateJustice AssociateJustice



MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.
AssociateJustice





CERTIFICATION

PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,itisherebycertifiedthattheconclusionsinthe
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinionoftheCourtsDivision.



RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice

[1]
Rollo,pp.1320.
[2]
CArollo,p.15pennedbyAssociateJusticeVicenteL.YapandconcurredinbyAssociateJusticesIsaiasP.DicdicanandEnrico
A.Lazanas.
[3]
Id.
[4]
Id.at3638pennedbyAssociateJusticeVicenteL.YapandconcurredinbyAssociateJusticesIsaiasP.DicdicanandAgustinS.
Dizon.
[5]
MotionforReconsiderationwithMotiontoAdmitPaymentofDocketFeeandEntryofAppearance,id.at1821.
[6]
Records,p.57.
[7]
Id.at10.
[8]
Id.at3.
[9]
Id.at53.
[10]
Id.at57.
[11]
Id.at4.
[12]
Id.at11.
[13]
SeeCertificateofSheriffsSale,id.at1112.
[14]
SeeAffidavitofConsolidationofOwnership,id.at14.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/december2011/174193.htm 10/12
11/17/2016 G.R.No.174193

[15]
Id.at15.
[16]
Id.at4143.
[17]
Id.at46.
[18]
Id.at4448.
[19]
OnNovember22,1993,aPreliminaryProhibitoryInjunctionwasissuedtostaytheexecutionofthedecisionintheunlawful
detainercase,id.at30.
[20]
For cancellation of TCT No. T19303, Annulment of Public Auction Sale, Deed of Sale and Affidavit of Consolidation,
Injunction,andDamageswithPrayerforPreliminaryInjunction,id.at18.
[21]
Morethan10yearsafterthepublicauctionsale.
[22]
Records,p.13.
[23]
Id.at158164.
[24]
Id.at166.
[25]
Id.at175.
[26]
Id.at182.
[27]
Id.
[28]
Id.at187.
[29]
Id.at192.
[30]
SeeMotiontoWithdraw,id.at194.
[31]
Id.at200.
[32]
Id.at206.
[33]
Section1.Groundsfordismissalofappeal.AnappealmaybedismissedbytheCourtofAppeals,onitsownmotionoronthat
oftheappellee,onthefollowinggrounds:
xxxx
(c)Failureoftheappellanttopaythedocketandotherlawfulfeesasprovidedinsection5ofRule40andsection4ofRule41.
[34]
CArollo,pp.1821.
[35]
Id.at20.
[36]
Id.
[37]
Id.at3638.
[38]
Id.at37.
[39]
Rollo,p.82.
[40]
399Phil.712(2000).
[41]
Tamayov.Tamayo,Jr.,504Phil.179,183(2005)SeealsoSpousesOrtizv.CourtofAppeals,360Phil.95,100101.(1998).
[42]
M.A.SantanderConstruction,Inc.v.Villanueva,484Phil.500,503(2004),citingNeplum,Inc.v.Orbeso,433Phil.844,867
(2002).
[43]
Supranote33.
[44]
Tamayov.Tamayo,Jr.,supranote41at184Aranasv.Endona,203Phil.120,126.(1982).
[45]
MeatmastersInternationalCorporationv.LelisIntegratedDevelopmentCorporation,492Phil.698,701(2005).
[46]
Id.at702703,citingLaSaletteCollegev.Pilotin,463Phil.785,794(2003)AmericanExpressInternational,Inc.v.Sison,G.R.
No. 172901, October 29, 2008, 570 SCRA 194, 203, citing Spouses Buenaflor v. Court of Appeals, 400 Phil. 395, 401402
(2000).

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/december2011/174193.htm 11/12
11/17/2016 G.R.No.174193

[47]
Bernardov.CourtofAppeals,341Phil.413,428(1997)citingGreenhillsAirconditioningandServices,Inc.v.NationalLabor
RelationsCommission,315Phil.409,417(1995).
[48]
Id.at429.
[49]
Tamayov.Tamayo,Jr.,supranote41at185.
[50]
Aranasv.Endona,supranote44.
[51]
Tamayov.Tamayo,Jr.,supranote41.
[52]
PetitionerreceivedtheRTCsOrderofdismissalonApril12,2004.UndertheRules,hehad15dayscountedfromthedateof
receipt,oruntilApril27,2004,toperfecttheappeal.
[53]
M.A.SantanderConstruction,Inc.v.Villanueva,supranote42at505.
[54]
Supranote40.
[55]
Id.at719.
[56]
Sebastianv.Hon.Morales,445Phil.595,605(2003).

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/december2011/174193.htm 12/12