Dear PAO,

I recently discovered that a parcel of land belonging to my parents was fraudulently sold to a developer. Because of this, we filed a case to declare the sale null and void. The developer who bought the property intervened in the case. Fortunately, the case was decided in our favor. Despite our win, the developer filed a Notice of Appeal but failed to file the appeal fee within the reglementary period. In fact, the appeal fee was paid seven days after the reglementary period. When questioned, they merely stated that it was mere inadvertence and that the appeal should still be given due course in favor of substantial justice. They prayed for the relaxation of the rules of procedure. Is this proper?

Sonia

Dear Sonia,

Please be informed of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Francis M. Zosa et al. v. Consilium, Inc. (GR 196765, Sept. 19, 2018, Ponente: Chief Justice Teresita Leonardo-de Castro), where it was provided that:

“Fundamental is the rule that the provisions of the law and the rules concerning the manner and period of appeal are mandatory and jurisdictional requirements; hence, cannot simply be discounted under the guise of liberal construction. But even if we were to apply liberality as prayed for, it is not a magic word that once invoked will automatically be considered as a mitigating circumstance in favor of the party invoking it. 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 this case, contrary to the finding of the Court of Appeals, there is no compelling reason advanced to exempt Consilium from the consequences of its noncompliance with the rules on appeals and motions.

“Consilium prays for the liberal application of Section 4 in relation to Section 13, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, as amended on the justification that its counsel’s clerk “forgot” to pay the appeal fee when he filed the notice of appeal — an excusable negligence.” (Emphasis and inderscoring ours)

The Supreme Court then proceeded to cite the Rules, particularly Sections 4 and 13 of Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Court, which provide that:

“Section 4. Appellate Court Docket and Other Lawful Fees. — Within the period for taking an appeal, the appellant shall pay to the clerk of the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from, the full amount of the appellate court docket and other lawful fees. Proof of payment of said fees shall be transmitted to the appellate court together with the original record or the record on appeal. x x x

“Section 13. Dismissal of Appeal. — Prior to the transmittal of the original record or the record on appeal to the appellate court, the trial court may, motu proprio or on motion, dismiss the appeal for having been taken out of time or for nonpayment of the docket and other lawful fees within the reglementary period.” (As amended, AM 00-2-10-SC, May 1, 2000.) (Emphasis in the original)

While certain amendments were introduced in the 2019 Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (AM 19-10-20-SC), the foregoing provisions remain untouched. Hence, the pronouncements of the High Court in the said case are still binding. The High Court also emphasized that liberality in the application of the rules is not a ‘magic word’ that can be used to justify the failure to abide by the rules of procedure. The liberalization of the rules only applies in exceptionally meritorious reasons or the existence of a special or compelling circumstance, viz:

“With the foregoing provisions, ‘the Court has consistently upheld the dismissal of an appeal or notice of appeal for failure to pay the full docket fees within the period for taking the appeal. Time and again, this Court has consistently held that the payment of docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory for the perfection of an appeal. Without such payment, the appellate court does not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action and the decision sought to be appealed from becomes final and executory.’

“Admittedly, there are exceptions to the aforecited general rule on the timely payment of appellate docket fees, embodied also in jurisprudence as identified by the Court of Appeals and Consilium in its petition for certiorari with the appellate court. But reading them, including a catena of other cases will show that they involve exceptionally meritorious reasons why the appellate docket fees were not timely paid — the substantive merits of the case, a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules, the existence of a special or compelling circumstance, etc.” (Emphasis ours)

In your present case, the mere inadvertence to timely pay the appeal fee cannot be considered as an exceptionally meritorious circumstance. The party requesting the liberal application of the rules must show that there exists a special reason or compelling circumstance that justifies the relaxation of the rule. Otherwise, the court must strictly apply the rule. That is to say, both the appeal and payment of appeal fees must be filed within the reglementary period provided by law.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated on.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net