Gipa Vs Southern Luzon Institute

 

36. ALONZ ALONZO O GIPA, GIPA, IMELDA IMELDA MARO MARO LLANO, LLANO, JUANIT JUANITO O LUDO LUDOVICE VICE,, VIRGILIO VIRGILIO GOJIT JIT, DEMAR BIT ANGCOR, FELIPE MONTALBAN AND DAIS ISY Y M. PLACER,Petitione!, "!. SOUT#ERN SOUT#E RN LUZON LUZON INSTITUT INSTITUTE E $! e%e!e e%e!ente& nte& '( it! Vi)e*P Vi)e*Pe!i& e!i&ent ent Fo Fo O%e$tion! $n& Co%o$te Se)et$(, RUBEN G. ASUNCION, Re!%on&ent. G.R. No.+-/ No.+-/

J0ne +1, 2+-

FACTS Responden espondentt Souther Southern n Luzon Luzon Institut Institute e (SLI), (SLI), an educatio educational nal institut institution ion in Bulan, Bulan, Sors So rsog ogon on,, fl fled ed a Comp Compla lain intt o orr Rec ecov over ery y o !ne !ners rshi hip p and and "oss "osses essi sion on !i !ith th #amages against the herein petitioners$ SLI alleged that it is the a%solute o!ner o a &,'*s+uaremeter parcel o land situated in Brgy$ "o%lacion, Bulan, Sorsogon$ In their ns!er !ith Counterclaim, Counterclaim, petitioners and their co*deendants co* deendants asserted that they did not heed SLI-s demand to vacate as they %elieved that they have the right to stay on the said property$ .hey relied on their occupation thereo and that o their predecessors*in*interest !hich, according to them, dates %ac/ to as early as 0'1$ By !ay o counterclaim, they prayed that they %e declared the la!ul possessors o  the property2 Ruling of the Regional Trial Court  3inding inding SLI to have have prove proven n its o!ners o!nership hip o th the e prop propert erty y %y prepo preponde nderan rance ce o  eviden evi dence, ce, the R.C rende rendere red d a #ecisi #ecision on in its avor avor$$ "etit "etition ioners ers and th their eir co* deendants fled a 4otice o ppeal !hich !as granted %y the R.C$ Ruling of the Court of Appeals  .he C, ho!ever, dismissed the appeal since it !as not sho!n that the appellate cour courtt doc/ doc/et et e ees es and and ot othe herr la! la!ul ul e ees es !er !ere paid paid$$ "et etit itio ione ners rs and and th thei eirr co* co* deendants promptly fled a 5otion or Reconsideration to !hich they attached a Certifcation rom the R.C that they paid the appeal ee in the amount o"6,111$11 under 7cial Receipt 4o$ 81061 dated 9anuary :', :11'$ In vie! o this, the C gr gran ante ted d th the e sa said id moti motion on and and cons conse+ e+ue uent ntly ly rei eins nsta tate ted d th the e appe appeal al th thro roug ugh h a Resolution Reso lution dated 4ovem%er :, :11'$ Su%se+uently, ho!ever, the C urther re+uired petitioners and their co*deendants, Su%se+uently, to remit !ithin ten days rom notice the amount o "61$11 or legal research und, !hich apparently !as not included in the "6,111$11 appeal ee previously paid %y them$ #espite the lapse o nine months rom their counsel-s receipt o the said resolution, petiti pet ition oners ers and their their co*de co*deend endant ants, s, ho!eve ho!ever, r, ailed ailed to comply comply !ith !ith the C-s C-s directive$ ;ence, the said court dismissed the appeal$

 

 9urisprudence is replete that the nonpayment o the doc/et and other la!ul ees  9urisprudence !ithi !it hin n the regl regleme ementa ntary ry period period as provi provided ded under Secti Section on < o Rule ourt is a ground or the dismissal o an appeal$ Initially, petitioners invo/e the li%eral application o technical rules and contend that the act that only the amount o "61$11 !as not paid ?ustifes rela@ation o the same$ Later in their Reply, ho!ever, petitioners concede concede that the payment o doc/et ees is notees a mere technicality$ 4evertheless, theyo point out thatthe !hile ull admits payment o doc/et is indispensa%le in the perection an appeal, same o  e@ceptions$ .heir case alls under one o the e@ceptions, that is, in the name o  su%stanti su%s tantial al ?ustice ?ustice and air play$ play$ ccord ccording ing to petition petitioners, ers, the dismissa dismissall o their their appeal or ailure to pay "61$11 runs counter to su%stantial ?ustice and air play as the same !ould deprive them o their right to ?ustice and render ineAective the amount o "6,111$11, !hich despite %eing indigents, indigents, they undertoo/ to pay

ISSUE ;.;R .; CDR. 3 ""LS ERFLG RR# I4 #IS5ISSI4E .; ""L 3IL# BG .; ".I.I4RS 3R 3ILDR . R5I. .; 5ER 5D4. 3 .;IR.G "SS ("61$11)$

#ELD The Petition fails. Payment of the full amount of appellate court docket and lawful fees is mandatory and jurisdictional; Relaxation of the rule on payment of appeal fee is unwarranted in this case. Here petitioners concede that payment of the full amount of docket fees within the  prescri!ed period is not a mere technicality of law or procedure !ut a jurisdictional re"uirement. #e$ertheless they want this Court to relax the application of the rule on the payment of the appeal fee in the name of su!stantial justice and e"uity.  .he Court is not persuaded$ persuaded$  .he li%erality !hich !hich petitioners petitioners pray or has already already %een granted to them them %y the C at the outset$ It may %e recalled that !hile petitioners paid a su%stantial part o the doc/et ees, they still ailed to pay the ull amount thereo since their payment !as short o "61$11$Based on the premise that the +uestioned #ecision o the R.C has alread alr eady y %ecom %ecome e fnal fnal and e@ecu e@ecutor tory y due due to non*pe non*per rect ection ion,, the C co could uld have have dismissed the appeal outright$ But o!ing to the act that only the meager amount o  "61$11 !as lac/ing and considering that the C may opt not to proceed !ith the case until the doc/et ees are paid, it still re+uired re+uired petitioners, even i it !as already %eyond the reglementary period, to complete their payment o the appeal ee !ithin 1 days rom notice$ Clearly, the C acted conorma%ly, !ith the pronouncement made in Camposagrado Camposagrado,, a case cited %y petitioners, that H=a> party-s ailure to pay the appellate doc/et ee !ithin the reglementary period coners only a discretionary and not a mandatory po!er to dismiss the proposed appeal$ S0)4 &i!)etion$( %o5e !4o0& 'e 0!e& in t4e e7e)i!e o8 t4e )o0t9! !o0n& :0&;