This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-12-10 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| We have upheld the dismissal of deficient appeals in such cases as Lazaro v. Court of Appeals,[28] Chan v. Court of Appeals,[29] Oriental Assurance Corp. v. Solidbank Corp.,[30] Manalili v. De Leon,[31] La Salette College v. Pilotin,[32] Navarro v. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company,[33] Saint Louis University v. Cordero,[34] M.A. Santander Construction, Inc. v. Villanueva,[35] and Tamayo v. Tamayo, Jr.[36] | |||||
|
2007-10-15 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Time and again, this Court has consistently held that payment of docket fee 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. [emphasis supplied][13] We have upheld the dismissal of such deficient appeals even when the incidents preceded the amendment of Section 13, Rule 41, as in such cases as Lazaro v. Court of Appeals,[14] Chan v. Court of Appeals,[15] Oriental Assurance Corp. v. Solidbank,[16] Manalili v. De Leon,[17] La Salette College v. Pilotin,[18] Navarro v. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company,[19] Saint Louis University v. Cordero,[20] M.A. Santander Construction v. Villanueva,[21] and Tamayo v. Tamayo.[22] Tellingly, in all these cited cases, the dismissal of the appeals or notices of appeal was undertaken prior to the amendment of Section 13, Rule 41 in 2000. | |||||