This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-10-15 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Notwithstanding the catena of cases we had earlier cited, there are, admittedly, exceptions to the general rule on the timely payment of appellate docket fees which are also embodied in jurisprudence. The petition adverts to two of these cases which were decided under the ambit of the 1997 Rules, MCIAA v. Mangubat[23] and Ayala Land v. Carpo,[24] and there are indeed others, such as Yambao v. Court of Appeals,[25] Buenaflor v. Court of Appeals,[26] Alfonso v. Andres,[27] and Villamor v. Court of Appeals.[28] Yet a common thread in all of said cases is an exceptionally meritorious reason why the appellate docket fees in the cases were not timely paid. In MCIAA, Alfonso and Villamor, the notices of appeal were filed therein less than a month after the effectivity of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which had instituted appellate docket fees in lieu of the old appeal bond. Hence, the appropriate finding then that "the changes introduced by the 1997 Rules of Civil procedure were yet novel, and even judges and lawyers needed time to familiarize themselves with the rules' intricacies." In Yambao, the non-payment of the full docket fees was caused by the erroneous assessment thereof by the RTC Clerk of Court, whereas in Buenaflor, the postal money orders used to pay the docket fees were erroneously addressed to the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. | |||||
|
2007-02-20 |
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. | |||||
|
2006-10-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Thus, in Villamor v. Court of Appeals,[21] the Court sustained the decision of the CA to reinstate the private respondents' appeal despite having paid the docket fees almost one year after the notice of appeal was filed, finding that there is no showing that the private respondents deliberately refused to pay the requisite fee within the reglementary period and abandon their appeal. The Court also found that it was imperative for the CA to review the ruling of the trial court to avoid a miscarriage of justice. Thus, the Court concluded, "Under the circumstances obtaining in the case at bar, we see no cogent reason to reverse the resolutions of the respondent court. It is the policy of the court to encourage hearing of appeals on their merits. To resort to technicalities which the petitioner capitalizes on in the instant petition would only tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice."[22] | |||||