Petitioners allege that since respondent failed to pay the docket and other legal fees at the time he filed the Notice of Appeal, his appeal was deemed not perfected in contemplation of the law. Thus, petitioners pray that the CA decision be set aside and a new one be rendered dismissing the respondent’s appeal and ordering the execution of the RTC Decision dated June 28, 2002.
On the other hand, respondent, citing Section 9, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, maintains that his appeal has been perfected by the mere filing of the notice of appeal. Respondent theorizes that with the perfection of his appeal, the trial court is now divested of jurisdiction to dismiss his appeal and, therefore, only the CA has jurisdiction to determine and rule on the propriety of his appeal. He raises the defense that his failure to pay the required docket and other legal fees was because the RTC Branch Clerk of Court did not make an assessment of the appeal fees to be paid when he filed the notice of appeal.
The petition is meritorious.
In cases of ordinary appeal, Section 2, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides that the appeal to the CA in cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the RTC (the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from) and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party. Section 3 thereof states that the appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final order appealed from. Concomitant with the filing of a notice of appeal is the payment of the required appeal fees within the 15-day reglementary period set forth in Section 4 of the said Rule. Thus,
SEC. 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.
In reversing the ruling of the trial court, the CA cited Yambao v. Court of Appeals[23] as justification for giving due course to respondent’s petition and ordering the belated payment of docket and other legal fees. In Yambao, the CA dismissed therein petitioners’ appeal from the RTC decision for failure to pay the full amount of the required docket fee. Upon elevation of the case, the Court, however, ordered the CA to give due course to their appeal, and ruled that their subsequent payment of the P20.00 deficiency, even before the CA had passed upon their motion for reconsideration, was indicative of their good faith and willingness to comply with the Rules.
The ruling in Yambao is not applicable to the present case as herein respondent never made any payment of the docket and other lawful fees, not even an attempt to do so, simultaneous with his filing of the Notice of Appeal. Although respondent was able to file a timely Notice of Appeal, however, he failed to pay the docket and other legal fees, claiming that the Branch Clerk of Court did not issue any assessment. This procedural lapse on the part of the respondent rendered his appeal with the CA to be dismissible and, therefore, the RTC Decision, dated June 28, 2002, to be final and executory.
In Far Corporation v. Magdaluyo,[24] as with other subsequent cases[25] of the same ruling, the Court explained that the procedural requirement under Section 4 of Rule 41 is not merely directory, as the payment of the docket and other legal fees within the prescribed period is both mandatory and jurisdictional. It bears stressing that an appeal is not a right, but a mere statutory privilege. An ordinary appeal from a decision or final order of the RTC to the CA must be made within 15 days from notice. And within this period, the full amount of the appellate court docket and other lawful fees must be paid to the clerk of the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from. The requirement of paying the full amount of the appellate docket fees within the prescribed period is not a mere technicality of law or procedure. The payment of docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory for the perfection of an appeal. Without such payment, the appeal is not perfected. 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. Further, under Section 1 (c), Rule 50, an appeal may be dismissed by the CA, on its own motion or on that of the appellee, on the ground of the non-payment of the docket and other lawful fees within the reglementary period as provided under Section 4 of Rule 41. The payment of the full amount of the docket fee is an indispensable step for the perfection of an appeal. In both original and appellate cases, the court acquires jurisdiction over the case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fees.
Respondent’s claim that his non-payment of docket and other lawful fees should be treated as mistake and excusable negligence, attributable to the RTC Branch Clerk of Court, is too superficial to warrant consideration. This is clearly negligence of respondent's counsel, which is not excusable. Negligence to be excusable must be one which ordinary diligence and prudence could not have guarded against.[26] Respondent's counsel filed a notice of appeal within the reglementary period for filing the same without, however, paying the appellate docket fees. He simply ignored the basic procedure of taking an appeal by filing a notice of appeal, coupled with the payment of the full amount of docket and other lawful fees. Respondent’s counsel should keep abreast of procedural laws and his ignorance of the procedural requirements shall bind the respondent. In National Power Corporation v. Laohoo,[27] we ruled that therein counsel’s failure to file the appeal in due time does not amount to excusable negligence. The non-perfection of the appeal on time is not a mere technicality. Besides, to grant therein petitioner’s plea for the relaxation of the rules on technicality would disturb a well-entrenched ruling that could make uncertain when a judgment attains finality, leaving the same to depend upon the resourcefulness of a party in concocting implausible excuses to justify an unwarranted departure from the time-honored policy of the law that the period for the perfection of an appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional.
The CA took cognizance over the case, based on the wrong premise that when the RTC issued the Order dated August 5, 2002 giving due course to respondent’s Notice of Appeal and directing the Branch Clerk of Court to transmit the entire records of the case to the CA, it ipso facto lost jurisdiction over the case. Section 9,[28] Rule 41 of the Rules explains that the court of origin loses jurisdiction over the case only upon the perfection of the appeal filed in due time by the appellant and the expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties. Withal, prior to the transmittal of the original records of the case to the CA, the RTC may issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the prevailing party, as in this case, the issuance of the writ of execution because the respondent’s appeal was not perfected.
Moreover, Section 13, Rule 41 of the Rules states that the CA may dismiss an appeal taken from the RTC on the ground of non-payment of the docket and other lawful fees within the 15-day reglementary period:
SEC 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 non-payment of the docket and other lawful fees within the reglementary period. (As amended by A.M. No. 00-2-10-SC, May 1, 2000.)
Since respondent’s appeal was not perfected within the 15-day reglementary period, it was as if no appeal was actually taken. Therefore, the RTC retains jurisdiction to rule on pending incidents lodged before it, such as the petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration, to Dismiss Appeal, and for Issuance of Writ of Execution, filed on August 26, 2002, which sought to set aside its Order dated August 5, 2002 that gave due course to respondent’s Notice of Appeal, and directed the issuance of a writ of execution. Having no jurisdiction over the case, the prudent thing that the CA should have done was to dismiss the respondent’s appeal for failure to pay the appeal fees, and declare that the RTC Decision dated June 28, 2002 has now become final and executory.
As an incidental matter on the propriety of petitioners’ petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules, respondent raises the argument that since the subject of the present petition is the writ of preliminary injunction granted by the CA (in favor of the respondent enjoining the execution of the RTC Decision dated June 28, 2002), in CA-G.R. SP No. 73171, which is interlocutory in nature, petitioners’ petition should be denied for being the wrong remedy. In other words, respondent advances the theory that since the assailed CA Decision dated June 23, 2004 partakes of an interlocutory order, i.e., enjoining the finality of the RTC Decision dated June 28, 2002, petitioners should have availed of the remedy of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, not a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
Respondent’s argument is unfounded. The proper remedy of a party aggrieved by a decision of the CA is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, which is not identical to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Rule 45 provides that decisions, final orders or resolutions of the CA in any case, i.e., regardless of the nature of the action or proceedings involved, may be appealed to Us by filing a petition for review on certiorari, which would be but a continuation of the appellate process over the original case.[29] Therefore, petitioners’ filing of the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is the proper and adequate remedy to challenge the Decision dated June 24, 2004 and Resolution dated February 23, 2005 of the CA.
To recapitulate, one who seeks to avail of the right to appeal must strictly comply with the requirements of the rules, and failure to do so leads to the loss of the right to appeal.[30] The rules require that from the date of receipt of the assailed RTC order denying one’s motion for reconsideration, an appellant may take an appeal to the CA by filing a notice of appeal with the RTC and paying the required docket and other lawful fees with the RTC Branch Clerk of Court, within the 15-day reglementary period for the perfection of an appeal. Otherwise, the appellant's appeal is not perfected, and the CA may dismiss the appeal on the ground of non-payment of docket and other lawful fees. As a consequence, the assailed RTC decision shall become final and executory and, therefore, the prevailing parties can move for the issuance of a writ of execution.
Since the CA erroneously took cognizance over the case, its Decision dated June 23, 2004 and Resolution dated February 23, 2005 should be overturned, and the Writ of Preliminary Injunction issued on August 20, 2003 should likewise be lifted. Thus, the RTC Decision dated June 28, 2002 is reinstated and, as the said decision having become final and executory, the case is remanded for its prompt execution.
While every litigant must be given the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities, the failure to perfect an appeal within the reglementary period is not a mere technicality. It raises jurisdictional problem, as it deprives the appellate court of its jurisdiction over the appeal. After a decision is declared final and executory, vested rights are acquired by the winning party. Just as a losing party has the right to appeal within the prescribed period, the winning party has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the decision on the case.[31]
x x x."
