Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 12

8/24/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME626

G.R. No. 187104. August 3, 2010.*

SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY, INC., petitioner, vs.


EVANGELINE C. COBARRUBIAS, respondent.

Appeals Docket Fees Pleadings and Practice Appeal is not a


natural right but a mere statutory privilege, thus, appeal must be
made strictly in accordance with the provision set by law Payment
in full of docket fees within the prescribed period is not only
mandatory, but also jurisdictional.Appeal is not a natural right
but a mere statutory privilege, thus, appeal must be made strictly
in accordance with the provision set by law. Rule 43 of the Rules
of Court provides that appeals from the judgment of the VA shall
be taken to the CA, by filing a petition for review within fifteen
(15) days from the receipt of the notice of judgment. Furthermore,
upon the filing of the petition, the petitioner shall pay to the CA
clerk of court the docketing and other lawful fees noncompliance
with the procedural requirements shall be a sufficient ground for
the petitions dismissal. Thus, payment in full of docket fees
within the prescribed period is not only mandatory, but also
jurisdictional. It is an essential requirement, without which, the
decision appealed from would become final and executory as if no
appeal has been filed.
Procedural Rules and Technicalities Procedural rules are not
to be belittled or dismissed simply because their nonobservance
may have prejudiced a partys substantive rights like all rules,
they are required to be followed Exceptions.Procedural rules do
not exist for the convenience of the litigants the rules were
established primarily to provide order to and enhance the
efficiency of our judicial system. While procedural rules are
liberally construed, the provisions on reglementary periods are
strictly applied, indispensable as they are to the prevention of
needless delays, and are necessary to the orderly and speedy
discharge of judicial business. Viewed in this light, procedural
rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their
nonobservance may have prejudiced a partys substantive rights
like all rules, they are required to be followed. However, there are
recognized exceptions to their strict observance, such as: (1) most
persuasive and weighty reasons (2) to relieve a litigant from an

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156bb6b7a429bca3c0a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/12
8/24/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME626

_______________

*THIRD DIVISION.

650

650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Saint Luis University, Inc. vs. Cobbarubias

injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with the


prescribed procedure (3) good faith of the defaulting party by
immediately paying within a reasonable time from the time of the
default (4) the existence of special or compelling circumstances
(5) the merits of the case (6) a cause not entirely attributable to
the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of
the rules (7) a lack of any showing that the review sought is
merely frivolous and dilatory (8) the other party will not be
unjustly prejudiced thereby (9) fraud, accident, mistake or
excusable negligence without the appellant's fault (10) peculiar,
legal and equitable circumstances attendant to each case (11) in
the name of substantial justice and fair play (12) importance of
the issues involved and (13) exercise of sound discretion by the
judge, guided by all the attendant circumstances. Thus, there
should be an effort, on the part of the party invoking liberality, to
advance a reasonable or meritorious explanation for his/her
failure to comply with the rules.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and


resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Ceasar G. Oracion and Jason R. Barlis for petitioner.
Emmanuel T. Costales for respondent.

BRION, J.:
We resolve the present petition for review on certiorari1
filed by petitioner Saint Louis University, Inc. (SLU), to
challenge the decision2 and the resolution3 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CAG.R. SP No. 101708.4

_______________

1Filed under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court Rollo, pp. 1342.
2 Dated November 5, 2008, penned by Associate Justice Celia C.
LibreaLeagogo, and concurred in by Associate Justices Mario L. Guaria
III and Arturo G. Tayag id., at pp. 144158.
3Dated February 24, 2009 id., at pp. 167168.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156bb6b7a429bca3c0a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/12
8/24/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME626

4 Entitled Evangeline C. Cobarrubias v. Saint Louis University,


represented by Fr. Jessie M. Hechanova.

651

VOL. 626, AUGUST 3, 2010 651


Saint Luis University, Inc. vs. Cobbarubias

The Factual Background

The facts of the case, gathered from the records, are


briefly summarized below.
Respondent Evangeline C. Cobarrubias is an associate
professor of the petitioners College of Human Sciences.
She is an active member of the Union of Faculty and
Employees of Saint Louis University (UFESLU).
The 200120065 and 200620116 Collective Bargaining
Agreements (CBAs) between SLU and UFESLU contain
the following common provision on forced leave:

Section 7.7. For teaching employees in college who fail the yearly
evaluation, the following provisions shall apply:
(a) Teaching employees who are retained for three (3) cumulative
years in five (5) years shall be on forced leave for one (1) regular
semester during which period all benefits due them shall be
suspended.7

SLU placed Cobarrubias on forced leave for the first


semester of School Year (SY) 20072008 when she failed
the evaluation for SY 20022003, SY 20052006, and SY
20062007, with the rating of 85, 77, and 72.9 points,
respectively, below the required rating of 87 points.
To reverse the imposed forced leave, Cobarrubias sought
recourse from the CBAs grievance machinery. Despite the
conferences held, the parties still failed to settle their
dispute, prompting Cobarrubias to file a case for illegal
forced leave or illegal suspension with the National
Conciliation and Mediation Board of the Department of
Labor and Employment, Cordillera Administrative Region,
Baguio City. When circulation and mediation again failed,
the parties submitted the

_______________

5Rollo, pp. 6264.


6Id., at pp. 6567.
7Id., at p. 63 and p. 66.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156bb6b7a429bca3c0a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/12
8/24/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME626

652

652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Saint Luis University, Inc. vs. Cobbarubias

issues between them for voluntary arbitration before


Voluntary Arbitrator (VA) Daniel T. Farias.
Cobarrubias argued that the CA already resolved the
forced leave issue in a prior case between the parties, CA
G.R. SP No. 90596,8 ruling that the forced leave for
teachers who fail their evaluation for three (3) times within
a fiveyear period should be coterminous with the CBA in
force during the same fiveyear period.9
SLU, for its part, countered that the CA decision in CA
G.R. SP No. 90596 cannot be considered in deciding the
present case since it is presently on appeal with this Court
(G.R. No. 176717)10 and, thus, is not yet final. It argued
that the forced leave provision applies irrespective of which
CBA is applicable, provided the employee fails her
evaluation three (3) times in five (5) years.11

The Voluntary Arbitrator Decision

On October 26, 2007, VA Daniel T. Farias dismissed


the case.12 He found that the CA decision in CAG.R. SP
No. 90596 is not yet final because of the pending appeal
with this Court. He noted that the CBA clearly authorized
SLU to place its teaching employees on forced leave when
they fail in the evaluation for three (3) years within a five
year period, without a distinction on whether the three
years fall within one or two CBA periods. Cobarrubias
received the VAs decision on November 20, 2007.13

_______________

8 Decision of May 23, 2006, entitled Saint Louis University, Inc. v.


Evangeline C. Cobarrubias.
9Entitled Evangeline C. Cobarrubias v. Saint Louis University, Inc.
10Id., at pp. 6877.
11Id., at pp. 4561.
12Id., at pp. 7885.
13Id., at p. 86.

653

VOL. 626, AUGUST 3, 2010 653


Saint Luis University, Inc. vs. Cobbarubias
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156bb6b7a429bca3c0a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/12
8/24/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME626

On December 5, 2007, Cobarrubias filed with the CA a


petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, but
failed to pay the required filing fees and to attach to the
petition copies of the material portions of the record.14
Thus, on January 14, 2008, the CA dismissed the
petition outright for Cobarrubias procedural lapses.15
Cobarrubias received the CA resolution, dismissing her
petition, on January 31, 2008.16
On February 15, 2008, Cobarrubias filed her motion for
reconsideration, arguing that the ground cited is technical.
She, nonetheless, attached to her motion copies of the
material portions of the record and the postal money orders
for P4,230.00. She maintained that the ends of justice and
fair play are better served if the case is decided on its
merits.17
On July 30, 2008, the CA reinstated the petition. It
found that Cobarrubias substantially complied with the
rules by paying the appeal fee in full and attaching the
proper documents in her motion for reconsideration.18
SLU insisted that the VA decision had already attained
finality for Cobarrubias failure to pay the docket fees on
time.

The CA Decision

The CA brushed aside SLUs insistence on the finality of


the VA decision and annulled it, declaring that the three
(3) cumulative years in five (5) years phrase in Section
7.7(a) of the 20062011 CBA means within the fiveyear
effectivity of the CBA. Thus, the CA ordered SLU to pay all
the benefits

_______________

14Id., at pp. 8695.


15Id., at pp. 9798.
16Id., at p. 99.
17Id., at pp. 99105.
18Id., at pp. 112115.

654

654 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Saint Luis University, Inc. vs. Cobbarubias

due Cobarrubias for the first semester of SY 20072008,


when she was placed on forced leave.19

When the CA denied20 the motion for reconsideration


http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156bb6b7a429bca3c0a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/12
8/24/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME626

When the CA denied20 the motion for reconsideration


that followed,21 SLU filed the present petition for review on
certiorari.22

The Petition

SLU argues that the CA should not have reinstated the


appeal since Cobarrubias failed to pay the docket fees
within the prescribed period, and rendered the VA decision
final and executory. Even if Cobarrubias procedural lapse
is disregarded, SLU submits that Section 7.7(a) of the
20062011 CBA should apply irrespective of the fiveyear
effectivity of each CBA.23

The Case for Cobarrubias

Cobarrubias insists that the CA settled the appeal fee


issue, in its July 30, 2008 resolution, when it found that
she had substantially complied with the rules by
subsequently paying the docket fees in full. She submits
that the CAs interpretation of Section 7.7(a) of the 2006
2011 CBA is more in accord with law and jurisprudence.24

The Issues

The core issues boil down to whether the CA erred in


reinstating Cobarrubias petition despite her failure to pay
the appeal fee within the reglementary period, and in
reversing the VA decision. To state the obvious, the appeal
fee is a

_______________

19Decision of November 5, 2008 supra note 2.


20Resolution of February 24, 2009 supra note 3.
21Id., at pp. 160165.
22Id., at pp. 1344.
23Ibid.
24Id., at pp. 219228.

655

VOL. 626, AUGUST 3, 2010 655


Saint Luis University, Inc. vs. Cobbarubias

threshold issue that renders all other issues unnecessary if


SLUs position on this issue is correct.

The Courts Ruling


http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156bb6b7a429bca3c0a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/12
8/24/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME626

We find the petition meritorious.


Payment of Appellate Court Docket Fees
Appeal is not a natural right but a mere statutory
privilege, thus, appeal must be made strictly in accordance
with the provision set by law.25 Rule 43 of the Rules of
Court provides that appeals from the judgment of the VA
shall be taken to the CA, by filing a petition for review
within fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the notice of
judgment.26 Furthermore, upon the filing of the petition,
the petitioner shall pay to the CA clerk of court the
docketing and other lawful fees27

_______________

25Espejo v. Ito, G.R. No. 176511, August 4, 2009, 595 SCRA 192, 204.
26 SEC. 4. Period of appeal.The appeal shall be taken within
fifteen (15) days from notice of the award, judgment, final order or
resolution, or from the date of its last publication, if publication is
required by law for its effectivity, or of the denial of petitioners motion for
new trial or reconsideration duly filed in accordance with the governing
law of the court or agency a quo. Only one (1) motion for reconsideration
shall be allowed. Upon proper motion and the payment of the full amount
of the docket fee before the expiration of the reglementary period, the
Court of Appeals may grant an additional period of fifteen (15) days only
within which to file the petition for review. No further extension shall be
granted except for the most compelling reason and in no case to exceed
fifteen (15) days. (Rule 43, Revised Rules of Court.)
27 SEC. 5. How appeal taken.Appeal shall be taken by filing a
verified petition for review in seven (7) legible copies with the Court of
Appeals, with proof of service of a copy thereof on the adverse party and
on the court or agency a quo. The original copy of the petition intended for
the Court of Appeals shall be indicated as such by the petitioner.

656

656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Saint Luis University, Inc. vs. Cobbarubias

noncompliance with the procedural requirements shall be


a sufficient ground for the petitions dismissal.28 Thus,
payment in full of docket fees within the prescribed period
is not only mandatory, but also jurisdictional.29 It is an
essential requirement, without which, the decision
appealed from would become final and executory as if no
appeal has been filed.30
As early as the 1932 case of Lazaro v. Endencia and
Andres,31 we stressed that the payment of the full amount
of the docket fee is an indispensable step for the perfection
of an appeal. In Lee v. Republic,32 we decided that even
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156bb6b7a429bca3c0a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/12
8/24/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME626

of an appeal. In Lee v. Republic,32 we decided that even


though half of the appellate court docket fee was deposited,
no appeal was deemed perfected where the other half was
tendered after the period within which payment should
have been made. In Aranas v. Endona,33 we reiterated that
the appeal is not per

_______________

Upon the filing of the petition, the petitioner shall pay to the clerk of
court of the Court of Appeals the docketing and other lawful fees and
deposit the sum of P500.00 for costs. Exemption from payment of
docketing and other lawful fees and the deposit for costs may be granted
by the Court of Appeals upon a verified motion setting forth valid grounds
therefor. If the Court of Appeals denies the motion, the petitioner shall
pay the docketing and other lawful fees and deposit for costs within fifteen
(15) days from notice of the denial. (Rule 43, Revised Rules of Court.)
28SEC. 7. Effect of failure to comply with requirements.The failure
of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements
regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for
costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the
documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground
for the dismissal thereof. (Rule 43, Revised Rules of Court.)
29 Ruby Shelter Builders and Realty Development Corporation v.
Formaran III, G.R. No. 175914, February 10, 2009, 578 SCRA 283, 297.
30Ruiz v. Delos Santos, G.R. No. 166386, January 27, 2009, 577 SCRA
29, 43.
3157 Phil. 552, 553 (1932).
32No. L15027, January 31, 1964, 10 SCRA 65, 67.
33203 Phil. 120, 127 117 SCRA 753, 759 (1982).

657

VOL. 626, AUGUST 3, 2010 657


Saint Luis University, Inc. vs. Cobbarubias

fected if only a part of the docket fee is deposited within


the reglementary period and the remainder is tendered
after the expiration of the period.
The rulings in these cases have been consistently
reiterated in subsequent cases: Guevarra v. Court of
Appeals,34 Pedrosa v. Spouses Hill,35 Gegare v. Court of
Appeals,36 Lazaro v. Court of Appeals,37 Sps. Manalili v.
Sps. de Leon,38 La Salette College v. Pilotin,39 Saint Louis
University v. Spouses Cordero,40 M.A. Santander
Construction, Inc. v. Villanueva,41 Far Corporation v.
Magdaluyo,42 Meatmasters Intl. Corp. v. Lelis Integrated

Devt. Corp.,43 Tamayo v. Tamayo, Jr.,44


http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156bb6b7a429bca3c0a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False Enriquez v. 8/12
8/24/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME626

Devt. Corp.,43 Tamayo v. Tamayo, Jr.,44 Enriquez v.


Enriquez,45 KLT Fruits, Inc. v. WSR Fruits, Inc.,46

_______________

34 241 Phil. 40, 4445 157 SCRA 32, 3637 (1988) docket fees paid
fortyone (41) days late.
35327 Phil. 153, 158 257 SCRA 373, 378 (1996) docket fees paid four
(4) months late.
36358 Phil. 228, 232 297 SCRA 587, 591 (1998) nonpayment of docket
fees despite CA notice to pay.
37 386 Phil. 412, 417 330 SCRA 208, 212 (2000) docket fees paid six
(6) months late.
38 422 Phil. 214, 221 370 SCRA 625, 631 (2001) docket fees paid
almost ten (10) months late.
39463 Phil. 785, 793 418 SCRA 380, 387 (2003) docket fees paid one
(1) year and eleven (11) months late.
40 478 Phil. 739, 750 434 SCRA 575, 586 (2004) docket fees paid
almost a month late.
41484 Phil. 500, 504 441 SCRA 525, 529 (2004) docket fees paid seven
(7) months and twentyfive (25) days late.
42485 Phil. 599, 610 443 SCRA 218, 229 (2004) docket fees paid 132
days late.
43492 Phil. 698, 701 452 SCRA 626, 630 (2005) docket fees paid one
(1) month late.
44G.R. No. 148482, August 12, 2005, 466 SCRA 618, 622623 docket
fees paid only upon the filing of the motion for reconsideration.
45 G.R. No. 139303, August 25, 2005, 468 SCRA 77, 86 docket fees
paid four (4) months late.
46 G.R. No. 174219, November 23, 2007, 538 SCRA 713, 730 docket
fees paid more than thirty (30) days late.

658

658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Saint Luis University, Inc. vs. Cobbarubias

Tan v. Link,47 Ilusorio v. IlusorioYap,48 and most recently


in Tabigue v. International Copra Export Corporation
(INTERCO),49 and continues to be the controlling doctrine.
In the present case, Cobarrubias filed her petition for
review on December 5, 2007, fifteen (15) days from receipt
of the VA decision on November 20, 2007, but paid her
docket fees in full only after seventytwo (72) days, when
she filed her motion for reconsideration on February 15,
2008 and attached the postal money orders for P4,230.00.
Undeniably, the docket fees were paid late, and without

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156bb6b7a429bca3c0a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/12
8/24/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME626

payment of the full docket fees, Cobarrubias appeal was


not perfected within the reglementary period.
Exceptions to the Rule on Payment of Appellate
Court Docket Fees not applicable
Procedural rules do not exist for the convenience of the
litigants the rules were established primarily to provide
order to and enhance the efficiency of our judicial system.50
While procedural rules are liberally construed, the
provisions on reglementary periods are strictly applied,
indispensable as they are to the prevention of needless
delays, and are necessary to the orderly and speedy
discharge of judicial business.51

_______________

47 G.R. No. 172849, December 10, 2008, 573 SCRA 479, 492 docket
fees paid two (2) days late.
48 G.R. No. 171659, March 17, 2009, 581 SCRA 643, 646 docket fees
paid more than three (3) months late.
49 G.R. No. 183335, December 23, 2009, 609 SCRA 223 deficiency in
docket fees paid only upon the filing of the motion for reconsideration.
50Mejillano v. Lucillo, G.R. No. 154717, June 19, 2009, 590 SCRA 1, 9
Ko v. Philippine National Bank, G.R. Nos. 16913132, January 20, 2006,
479 SCRA 298, 303.
51Villa v. Heirs of Enrique Altavas, G.R. No. 162028, July 14, 2008,
558 SCRA 157, 166 Moneytrend Lending Corporation v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No 165580, February 20, 2006, 482 SCRA 705, 714.

659

VOL. 626, AUGUST 3, 2010 659


Saint Luis University, Inc. vs. Cobbarubias

Viewed in this light, procedural rules are not to be


belittled or dismissed simply because their nonobservance
may have prejudiced a partys substantive rights like all
rules, they are required to be followed. However, there are
recognized exceptions to their strict observance, such as: (1)
most persuasive and weighty reasons (2) to relieve a
litigant from an injustice not commensurate with his
failure to comply with the prescribed procedure (3) good
faith of the defaulting party by immediately paying within
a reasonable time from the time of the default (4) the
existence of special or compelling circumstances (5) the
merits of the case (6) a cause not entirely attributable to
the fault or negligence of the party favored by the
suspension of the rules (7) a lack of any showing that the
review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory (8) the other
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156bb6b7a429bca3c0a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/12
8/24/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME626

party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby (9) fraud,


accident, mistake or excusable negligence without the
appellant's fault (10) peculiar, legal and equitable
circumstances attendant to each case (11) in the name of
substantial justice and fair play (12) importance of the
issues involved and (13) exercise of sound discretion by the
judge, guided by all the attendant circumstances.52 Thus,
there should be an effort, on the part of the party invoking
liberality, to advance a reasonable or meritorious
explanation for his/her failure to comply with the rules.
In Cobarrubias case, no such explanation has
been advanced. Other than insisting that the ends of
justice and fair play are better served if the case is decided
on its merits, Cobarrubias offered no excuse for her failure
to pay the docket fees in full when she filed her petition for
review. To us, Cobarrubias omission is fatal to her cause.
We, thus, find that the CA erred in reinstating
Cobarrubias petition for review despite the nonpayment of
the

_______________

52Lim v. Delos Santos, G.R. No. 172574, July 31, 2009, 594 SCRA 607,
616617 Villena v. Rupisan, G.R. No. 167620, April 3, 2007, 520 SCRA
346, 358359.

660

660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Saint Luis University, Inc. vs. Cobbarubias

requisite docket fees within the reglementary period. The


VA decision had lapsed to finality when the docket fees
were paid hence, the CA had no jurisdiction to entertain
the appeal except to order its dismissal.
WHEREFORE, the present petition is GRANTED. The
assailed decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals in
CAG.R. SP No. 101708 are hereby DECLARED VOID and
are consequently SET ASIDE. The decision of the
voluntary arbitrator, that the voided Court of Appeals
decision and resolution nullified, stands. No
pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.

CarpioMorales (J., Chairperson), Bersamin, Abad**


and Villarama, Jr., JJ., concur.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156bb6b7a429bca3c0a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/12
8/24/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME626

Petition granted, judgment and resolution declared void


and set aside.

Note.While a court may refuse to entertain a suit for


nonpayment of docket fees, such failure does not preclude
it, however, from taking cognizance of the case as
circumstances may so warrant or when the ends of justice
would be best served if the case were to be given due course
the failure to pay the appeal docketing fee confers a
discretionary authority, not mandatory charge, on the part
to dismiss an appeal. (Public Estates Authority vs. Yujuico,
351 SCRA 280 [2001])
o0o

_______________

** Designated additional Member of the Third Division, in view of the


retirement of Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, per Special Order No. 843
dated May 17, 2010.

Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156bb6b7a429bca3c0a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/12

Вам также может понравиться