SLU vs. Cobarrubias

REMEDIAL LAW 1 > Civil Procedure > Rule 1-5 Saint Louis University Inc., Inc., Petitioner  vs!  vs! Evan"eline C! Co#arru#ias Co#arru#ias Respondent  $!R! %o! 1&'1()* Au"ust + ,(1(  ! .rion /0ird Division2

3AC0S4 Cobarrubias is an associate professor of SLU and an active member of the Union of Faculty and Employees ( UFESLU). In a CB bet!een SLU and UFESLU a provision for forced leave for one re"ular semester shall be applied for teachin" employees !ho !ill fail # times !ithin a $%year period in the yearly evaluation. SLU placed Cobarrubias Cobarrubias on forced leave for the &rst semester of S.Y . '%'* !hen she failed the evaluation for # times. Cobarru Cobarrubias bias sou"ht recourse recourse from from the CBs "rievance "rievance machiner machinery+ y+ but to no avail. ,hus+ Cobarrubias &led a case for ille"al forced leave or ille"al suspension !ith the -CB of the /0LE and !hen circulation and mediation a"ain failed+ the part partie ies s subm submit itte ted d the the issu issues es bet! bet!ee een n them them for for volu volunt ntar ary y arbi arbitr trat atio ion n (1) (1).. Cobarrubias ar"ued that the C already resolved the forced leave issue in a prior case bet!een the parties rulin" that the forced leave for teachers !ho fail their evaluation for # times !ithin a &ve%year period should be coterminous !ith the CB in force durin" the same &ve%year period. SLU+ for its part+ countered that the C2s decision is not yet &nal. ,he 1 dismissed the case. Cobarrubias &led !ith the C a petition for revie! under 3ule 4# of the 3ules of Court+ but failed to pay the re5uired &lin" fees and to attach to the petition copies of the material portions of the record.  ,hus+ the C dismissed the petition outri"ht for Cobarrubias2 Cobarrubias2 procedural procedural lapses. Upon 3+ procedural lapses !ere complied !ith thus the C reinstated the petition.

ISSUE4 60- the C erred in reinstatin" Cobarrubias2 petition despite her failure to pay the appeal fee !ithin the re"lementary re"lementary period ELD4 6ES! ppeal is not a natural ri"ht but a mere statutory privile"e+ thus+ appeal must be made strictly in accordance !ith the provision set by la!. 3ule 4# of the 3ules of  Court provides that appeals from the 7ud"ment of the 1 shall be ta8en to the C+ by fling a petition or review within fteen (15) days rom the receipt o  the notice o jdgment. !rthermore, pon the fling o the petition, the  petitioner shall shall pay to the "# cler$ cler$ o cort the doc$e doc$eting ting and other lawl  lawl  ees% non& non&co comp mpli lian ance ce with with the the proc proced edr ral al re' re'ir irem emen ents ts shal shalll be a scient grond or the petitions dismissal . ,hus+ payment in full of doc8et fees !ithin the prescribed period is not only mandatory+ but also 7urisdictional. It is an essential re5uirement+ !ithout !hich+ the decision appealed from !ould become &nal and e9ecutory as if no appeal has been &led.

In the present case+ Cobarrubias paid her doc8et fees in full only after seventy% t!o (') days !hen she &led her motion for reconsideration and attached the postal money orders. Undeniably+ the doc8et fees !ere paid late+ and !ithout payment of  the full doc8et fees+ Cobarrubias appeal !as not perfected !ithin the re"lementary period. 6hile procedural rules are liberally construed+ the provisions on re"lementary periods are strictly applied+ indispensable as they are to the prevention of needless delays+ and are necessary to the orderly and speedy dischar"e of 7udicial business. 1ie!ed in this li"ht+ procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non%observance may have pre7udiced a party:s substantive ri"hts; li8e all rules+ they are re5uired to be follo!ed.