View full case

AUGUSTUS GONZALES v. QUIRICO PE

FACTS:

This case involves a dispute between Spouses Nestor Victor and Dr. Ma. Lourdes Rodriguez (petitioners) and Quirico Pe (respondent) over a blank Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) check. Petitioner Nestor Rodriguez gave the blank LBP check to respondent as collateral for a construction project. After a year, respondent filled in the blank check with an amount of P2,062,000.00 and a date of June 30, 1999. Petitioners filed a complaint seeking the declaration of payment and cancellation of the LBP check, while respondent counterclaimed for the outstanding balance.

The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioners, stating that the filling up of the LBP check by the respondent was not done in a reasonable time and concluded that the cement had been fully paid. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision and ordered the assessment and payment of appellate docket fees.

Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied by the Court of Appeals. They then filed a petition alleging that the Court of Appeals erred in allowing the respondent to belatedly pay the required appellate docket and other legal fees.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the respondent's appeal was properly perfected despite failure to pay the docket and other legal fees.

  2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in allowing the belated payment of docket and other legal fees.

  3. Whether the non-payment of docket and other lawful fees within the reglementary period for the perfection of an appeal is excusable negligence.

  4. Whether the CA acquired jurisdiction over the case upon the issuance of an order by the RTC giving due course to the notice of appeal.

  5. Whether the CA should have dismissed the appeal for failure to pay the appeal fees.

  6. Whether or not the Court of Appeals (CA) erred in taking cognizance of the appeal despite the non-payment of docket and other lawful fees.

  7. Whether or not the failure to perfect an appeal within the reglementary period is a mere technicality or raises a jurisdictional problem.

RULING:

  1. No, the respondent's appeal was not properly perfected due to failure to pay the docket and other legal fees. The payment of the full amount of the appellate docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory for the perfection of an appeal. Without such payment, the appeal is not perfected, and the appellate court does not acquire jurisdiction over the case. The judgment sought to be appealed from becomes final and executory.

  2. Yes, the Court of Appeals erred in allowing the belated payment of docket and other legal fees. The ruling in a previous case where belated payment was allowed is not applicable in the present case because the respondent never made any payment of the docket and other lawful fees, not even an attempt to do so, simultaneous with the filing of the notice of appeal. The procedural requirement under the rules is not merely directory but mandatory and jurisdictional. The payment of the docket fees within the prescribed period is an indispensable step for the perfection of an appeal.

  3. The non-payment of docket and other lawful fees within the reglementary period for the perfection of an appeal is not excusable negligence. It is the responsibility of the appellant's counsel to be knowledgeable about procedural laws and to follow the requirements for taking an appeal. Negligence, to be excusable, must be one that ordinary diligence and prudence could not have guarded against.

  4. The CA did not acquire jurisdiction over the case upon the issuance of an order by the RTC giving due course to the notice of appeal. The court of origin loses jurisdiction over the case only upon the perfection of the appeal filed in due time by the appellant and the expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties. Prior to the transmittal of the original records of the case to the CA, the RTC may issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the prevailing party, even if the appeal was not perfected.

  5. The CA should have dismissed the appeal for failure to pay the appeal fees. Section 13, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides that the CA may dismiss an appeal taken from the RTC on the ground of non-payment of the docket and other lawful fees within the 15-day reglementary period.

  6. The CA erred in taking cognizance of the appeal despite the non-payment of docket and other lawful fees. The failure to pay the required fees within the prescribed period for the perfection of an appeal renders the appeal not perfected. Consequently, the CA may dismiss the appeal on the ground of non-payment of fees, and the Regional Trial Court's (RTC) decision becomes final and executory. Therefore, the CA Decision and Resolution are reversed and set aside, and the Writ of Preliminary Injunction issued by the CA is lifted.

  7. The failure to perfect an appeal within the reglementary period raises a jurisdictional problem. After a decision is declared final and executory, vested rights are acquired by the winning party. While litigants should be given ample opportunity for the proper determination of their cause, the failure to perfect an appeal within the prescribed period deprives the appellate court of its jurisdiction over the appeal. The winning party has the right to enjoy the finality of the decision on the case, just as the losing party has the right to appeal within the prescribed period.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The payment of the full amount of the appellate docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory for the perfection of an appeal.

  • Without the payment of docket fees, the appeal is not perfected and the appellate court does not acquire jurisdiction over the case.

  • The requirement of paying the full amount of the appellate docket fees within the prescribed period is not a mere technicality but an indispensable step for the perfection of an appeal.

  • The court acquires jurisdiction over the case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fees.

  • An appeal may be dismissed by the Court of Appeals on the ground of non-payment of docket and other lawful fees within the reglementary period.

  • The payment of docket fees is both mandatory and jurisdictional.

  • Negligence to be excusable must be one that ordinary diligence and prudence could not have guarded against.

  • The court of origin loses jurisdiction over the case only upon the perfection of the appeal filed in due time by the appellant and the expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties.

  • The CA may dismiss an appeal taken from the RTC on the ground of non-payment of the docket and other lawful fees within the reglementary period.

  • Failure to pay the required fees within the prescribed period for the perfection of an appeal renders the appeal not perfected and may lead to its dismissal by the appellate court.

  • After a decision is declared final and executory, vested rights are acquired by the winning party.

  • The failure to perfect an appeal within the reglementary period raises a jurisdictional problem as it deprives the appellate court of its jurisdiction over the appeal.