Lawyerly

GR No. 120051

2014-12-10

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Given the circumstances, Maersk, et al.,, cannot be faulted for their failure to pay the required legal fees for such failure was clearly not a dilatory tactic nor intended to circumvent the Rules of Court. On the contrary, the subsequent payment by Maersk, et al.,, of the P202.00 deficiency even before the Court had passed upon their Motion for Reconsideration was indicative of their good faith and willingness to comply with the Rules.[68]

GR No. 151084

2010-07-02

PROVINCE OF CAMARINES SUR v. HEIRS OF AGUSTIN PATO

PERALTA, J.

This Court is not convinced. Time and time 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.[17]

GR No. 178989

2010-03-18

EAGLE RIDGE GOLF v. CA

VELASCO JR., J.

As with most rules of procedure, however, exceptions are invariably recognized and the relaxation of procedural rules on review has been effected to obviate jeopardizing substantial justice.[36] This liberality stresses the importance of review in our judicial grievance structure to accord every party litigant the amplest opportunity for the proper and just disposition of his cause, freed from the constraints of technicalities.[37] But concomitant to a liberal interpretation of the rules of procedure should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to adequately explain his failure to abide by the rules.[38]

GR No. 159792

2009-12-23

BARANGAY SANGALANG v. BARANGAY MAGUIHAN

PERALTA, J.

Anent the issue of docket fees, this Court, in Yambao v. Court of Appeals,[18] declared: x x x Considering the importance and purpose of the remedy of appeal, an essential part of our judicial system, courts are well-advised to proceed with caution so as not to deprive a party of the right to appeal, but rather, ensure that every party-litigant has the "amplest opportunity for the proper and just disposition of his cause, freed from constraints of technicalities." In line with this policy, we have held that, in appealed cases, the failure to pay the appellate docket fee does not automatically result in the dismissal of the appeal x x x

GR No. 153690

2008-08-26

DAVID LU v. PATERNO LU YM

NACHURA, J.

It may be recalled that despite the payment of insufficient fees, this Court refrained from dismissing the complaint/petition in Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation (IBC-13) v. Alonzo-Legasto,[71] Yambao v. Court of Appeals[72] and Ayala Land, Inc. v. Carpo.[73] In those cases, the inadequate payment was caused by the erroneous assessment made by the Clerk of Court. In Intercontinental,[74] we declared that the payment of the docket fees, as assessed, negates any imputation of bad faith to the respondent or any intent of the latter to defraud the government. Thus, when insufficient filing fees were initially paid by the respondent, and there was no intention to defraud the government, the Manchester rule does not apply. In Yambao,[75] this Court concluded that petitioners cannot be faulted for their failure to pay the required docket fees for, given the prevailing circumstances, such failure was clearly not a dilatory tactic or intended to circumvent the Rules of Court. In Ayala Land,[76] the Court held that despite the jurisdictional nature of the rule on payment of docket fees, the appellate court still has the discretion to relax the rule in meritorious cases.

GR NO. 148505

2007-02-20

LEOPOLDO v. MENDOZA

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

While the Rules of Court must be faithfully followed, however, they may be relaxed for persuasive and weighty reasons to relieve a litigant from an injustice commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedures.[4] In Yambao v. Court of Appeals,[5] we ruled that the appellate court may extend the time for the payment of docket fees if appellant is able to show that there is a justifiable reason for the failure to pay the correct amount of docket fees within the prescribed period, like fraud, accident, mistake, excusable negligence, or a similar supervening casualty without fault on the part of the appellant. In Villamor v. Court of Appeals,[6] we reinstated the appeal despite appellant's failure to pay the docket fees after almost one year from the filing of the notice of appeal. We found that there was no deliberate refusal on his part to pay the required docket fee within the reglementary period.

GR NO. 155824

2007-01-31

GILLAMAC’S MARKETING v. -VS.- ABOITIZ SHIPPING CORPORATION

The failure to pay docket fees does not automatically result in the dismissal of an appeal, it being discretionary on the part of the appellate court to give it due course or not.[9] We will then not interfere with matters addressed to the sound discretion of the CA in the absence of proof that the exercise of such discretion was tainted with bias or prejudice, or made without due circumspection of the attendant circumstances of the case.[10]

GR NO. 154284

2006-10-27

BIBIANA FARMS v. NLRC

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

It should be noted that it was only after the CA dismissed his petition that private respondent learned that the payment for the docket fees did not reach the CA. Consequently, he filed a motion for reconsideration and enclosed postal money orders as payment. While private respondent may have taken the unnecessary risk in initially enclosing cash in his petition, nevertheless, it was clearly not a dilatory tactic nor intended to circumvent the Rules of Court. In fact, private respondent subsequently paid the docket fees even before the CA had passed upon their motion for reconsideration, which is indicative of his good faith and willingness to comply with the Rules.[24]

GR NO. 134473

2006-03-30

JUAN DE DIOS CARLOS v. CA AND SPS. PEDRO R. BALBANERO AND JOVITA AMITHS BALBANERO

GARCIA, J.

All told, the private respondents cannot be faulted with prejudice for their failure to pay the required docket fees. For, given the prevailing circumstances, there was no intention on their part to engage in dilatory tactics or circumvent the Rules of Court. On the contrary, their subsequent payment of the P20.00 deficiency immediately when directed to do so by the CA was indicative of their good faith and willingness to comply with the Rules.[16]

GR NO. 163022

2005-02-28

MEATMASTERS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION v. LELIS INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

In Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority v. Mangubat,[15] the payment of the docket fees was delayed by six (6) days, but the late payment was accepted not only because the new Rules took effect only two (2) weeks prior but also because the party showed willingness to abide by the Rules by immediately paying those fees as soon as it became aware thereof. In Yambao v. Court of Appeals,[16] we declared therein that "the appellate court may extend the time for the payment of the docket fees if appellant is able to show that there is a justifiable reason for … the failure to pay the correct amount of docket fees within the prescribed period, like fraud, accident, mistake, excusable negligence, or a similar supervening casualty, without fault on the part of the appellant." In that case, the clerk of court erroneously assessed the amount of the docket fees which, nonetheless, was paid within the appeal period, although insufficient.

GR NO. 148739

2004-11-19

FAR CORPORATION v. RENATO MAGDALUYO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In support of the assignment of errors, petitioner submits the arguments that the nonpayment on time of the appeal docket fees is a non-fatal lapse, or a non-jurisdictional defect which the Court of Appeals should have overlooked in order to attain substantial justice.[21] This argument, according to petitioner, was based on our rulings in the earlier cases of Rosario Yambao v. Court of Appeals,[22] Ayala Land, Inc. v. Sps. Morris and Socorro Carpo,[23] and Santos v. Court of Appeals.[24] Further, petitioner argues that the Court of Appeals hastily and wrongly dismissed its appeal considering that there was good faith and willingness on its part to comply with the Rules by voluntarily paying the docket fees.[25]

GR No. 144118

2004-07-21

SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY v. WINSTON JOSEPH Z. CORDERO AND SPS. LUCIO CORDERO

DAVIDE JR., J.

The general rule is that the payment of docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory for the perfection of an appeal.[15] The ruling is based on Section 4, Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which states: Sec. 4. Appellate court docket and other lawful fees. Within the period for taking an appeal, the appellant shall pay to the clerk of 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. Under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a notice of appeal must be filed within the 15-day reglementary period reckoned from receipt of the decision or order appealed from; the docket and other lawful fees must also be paid within the same period. Such docket fees shall be paid with the clerk of the court which rendered the judgment or decision appealed from. The place of payment is not optional but a mandatory requirement for the appellant.[16]

GR No. 140858

2001-11-27

SPS. PAPA AND LOLITA MANALILI v. SPS. ARSENIO AND GLICERIA DE LEON

PANGANIBAN, J.

We are not convinced. Time and time 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."[10]

	GR No. 120051 2014-12-10	CITY OF MANILA v. ANGEL VALERA COLET LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Given the circumstances, Maersk, et al.,, cannot be faulted for their failure to pay the required legal fees for such failure was clearly not a dilatory tactic nor intended to circumvent the Rules of Court. On the contrary, the subsequent payment by Maersk, et al.,, of the P202.00 deficiency even before the Court had passed upon their Motion for Reconsideration was indicative of their good faith and willingness to comply with the Rules.[68]
	GR No. 151084 2010-07-02	PROVINCE OF CAMARINES SUR v. HEIRS OF AGUSTIN PATO PERALTA, J.
This Court is not convinced. Time and time 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.[17]
	GR No. 178989 2010-03-18	EAGLE RIDGE GOLF v. CA VELASCO JR., J.
As with most rules of procedure, however, exceptions are invariably recognized and the relaxation of procedural rules on review has been effected to obviate jeopardizing substantial justice.[36] This liberality stresses the importance of review in our judicial grievance structure to accord every party litigant the amplest opportunity for the proper and just disposition of his cause, freed from the constraints of technicalities.[37] But concomitant to a liberal interpretation of the rules of procedure should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to adequately explain his failure to abide by the rules.[38]
	GR No. 159792 2009-12-23	BARANGAY SANGALANG v. BARANGAY MAGUIHAN PERALTA, J.
Anent the issue of docket fees, this Court, in Yambao v. Court of Appeals,[18] declared: x x x Considering the importance and purpose of the remedy of appeal, an essential part of our judicial system, courts are well-advised to proceed with caution so as not to deprive a party of the right to appeal, but rather, ensure that every party-litigant has the "amplest opportunity for the proper and just disposition of his cause, freed from constraints of technicalities." In line with this policy, we have held that, in appealed cases, the failure to pay the appellate docket fee does not automatically result in the dismissal of the appeal x x x
	GR No. 153690 2008-08-26	DAVID LU v. PATERNO LU YM NACHURA, J.
It may be recalled that despite the payment of insufficient fees, this Court refrained from dismissing the complaint/petition in Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation (IBC-13) v. Alonzo-Legasto,[71] Yambao v. Court of Appeals[72] and Ayala Land, Inc. v. Carpo.[73] In those cases, the inadequate payment was caused by the erroneous assessment made by the Clerk of Court. In Intercontinental,[74] we declared that the payment of the docket fees, as assessed, negates any imputation of bad faith to the respondent or any intent of the latter to defraud the government. Thus, when insufficient filing fees were initially paid by the respondent, and there was no intention to defraud the government, the Manchester rule does not apply. In Yambao,[75] this Court concluded that petitioners cannot be faulted for their failure to pay the required docket fees for, given the prevailing circumstances, such failure was clearly not a dilatory tactic or intended to circumvent the Rules of Court. In Ayala Land,[76] the Court held that despite the jurisdictional nature of the rule on payment of docket fees, the appellate court still has the discretion to relax the rule in meritorious cases.
	GR NO. 148505 2007-02-20	LEOPOLDO v. MENDOZA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
While the Rules of Court must be faithfully followed, however, they may be relaxed for persuasive and weighty reasons to relieve a litigant from an injustice commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedures.[4] In Yambao v. Court of Appeals,[5] we ruled that the appellate court may extend the time for the payment of docket fees if appellant is able to show that there is a justifiable reason for the failure to pay the correct amount of docket fees within the prescribed period, like fraud, accident, mistake, excusable negligence, or a similar supervening casualty without fault on the part of the appellant. In Villamor v. Court of Appeals,[6] we reinstated the appeal despite appellant's failure to pay the docket fees after almost one year from the filing of the notice of appeal. We found that there was no deliberate refusal on his part to pay the required docket fee within the reglementary period.
	GR NO. 155824 2007-01-31	GILLAMAC’S MARKETING v. -VS.- ABOITIZ SHIPPING CORPORATION
The failure to pay docket fees does not automatically result in the dismissal of an appeal, it being discretionary on the part of the appellate court to give it due course or not.[9] We will then not interfere with matters addressed to the sound discretion of the CA in the absence of proof that the exercise of such discretion was tainted with bias or prejudice, or made without due circumspection of the attendant circumstances of the case.[10]
	GR NO. 154284 2006-10-27	BIBIANA FARMS v. NLRC AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
It should be noted that it was only after the CA dismissed his petition that private respondent learned that the payment for the docket fees did not reach the CA. Consequently, he filed a motion for reconsideration and enclosed postal money orders as payment. While private respondent may have taken the unnecessary risk in initially enclosing cash in his petition, nevertheless, it was clearly not a dilatory tactic nor intended to circumvent the Rules of Court. In fact, private respondent subsequently paid the docket fees even before the CA had passed upon their motion for reconsideration, which is indicative of his good faith and willingness to comply with the Rules.[24]
	GR NO. 134473 2006-03-30	JUAN DE DIOS CARLOS v. CA AND SPS. PEDRO R. BALBANERO AND JOVITA AMITHS BALBANERO GARCIA, J.
All told, the private respondents cannot be faulted with prejudice for their failure to pay the required docket fees. For, given the prevailing circumstances, there was no intention on their part to engage in dilatory tactics or circumvent the Rules of Court. On the contrary, their subsequent payment of the P20.00 deficiency immediately when directed to do so by the CA was indicative of their good faith and willingness to comply with the Rules.[16]
	GR NO. 163022 2005-02-28	MEATMASTERS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION v. LELIS INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority v. Mangubat,[15] the payment of the docket fees was delayed by six (6) days, but the late payment was accepted not only because the new Rules took effect only two (2) weeks prior but also because the party showed willingness to abide by the Rules by immediately paying those fees as soon as it became aware thereof. In Yambao v. Court of Appeals,[16] we declared therein that "the appellate court may extend the time for the payment of the docket fees if appellant is able to show that there is a justifiable reason for … the failure to pay the correct amount of docket fees within the prescribed period, like fraud, accident, mistake, excusable negligence, or a similar supervening casualty, without fault on the part of the appellant." In that case, the clerk of court erroneously assessed the amount of the docket fees which, nonetheless, was paid within the appeal period, although insufficient.
	GR NO. 148739 2004-11-19	FAR CORPORATION v. RENATO MAGDALUYO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In support of the assignment of errors, petitioner submits the arguments that the nonpayment on time of the appeal docket fees is a non-fatal lapse, or a non-jurisdictional defect which the Court of Appeals should have overlooked in order to attain substantial justice.[21] This argument, according to petitioner, was based on our rulings in the earlier cases of Rosario Yambao v. Court of Appeals,[22] Ayala Land, Inc. v. Sps. Morris and Socorro Carpo,[23] and Santos v. Court of Appeals.[24] Further, petitioner argues that the Court of Appeals hastily and wrongly dismissed its appeal considering that there was good faith and willingness on its part to comply with the Rules by voluntarily paying the docket fees.[25]
	GR No. 144118 2004-07-21	SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY v. WINSTON JOSEPH Z. CORDERO AND SPS. LUCIO CORDERO DAVIDE JR., J.
The general rule is that the payment of docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory for the perfection of an appeal.[15] The ruling is based on Section 4, Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which states: Sec. 4. Appellate court docket and other lawful fees. Within the period for taking an appeal, the appellant shall pay to the clerk of 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. Under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a notice of appeal must be filed within the 15-day reglementary period reckoned from receipt of the decision or order appealed from; the docket and other lawful fees must also be paid within the same period. Such docket fees shall be paid with the clerk of the court which rendered the judgment or decision appealed from. The place of payment is not optional but a mandatory requirement for the appellant.[16]
	GR No. 140858 2001-11-27	SPS. PAPA AND LOLITA MANALILI v. SPS. ARSENIO AND GLICERIA DE LEON PANGANIBAN, J.
We are not convinced. Time and time 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."[10]

ROSARIO YAMBAO v. CA