Appeal fee is mandatory, jurisdictional - G.R. No. 174193

G.R. No. 174193

"x x x.


Payment of full docket fees within the prescribed period for taking an appeal is mandatory.


It is well-established that “[t]he right to appeal is a statutory privilege and must be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law.”[41] “Thus, 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.”[42]
The applicable rule for appeals from judgments issued by the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction is Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, Section 4 of which provides:

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.


The Rules also provide that failure of the appellant to pay the docket and other lawful fees is a ground for dismissal of the appeal.[43]

The Court has consistently ruled in a number of cases that the payment of the full amount of docket fees within the prescribed period is both mandatory and jurisdictional.[44] It is a condition sine qua non for the appeal to be perfected and only then can a court acquire jurisdiction over the case.[45] The requirement of an appeal fee is not a mere technicality of law or procedure and should not be undermined except for the most persuasive of reasons. Non-observance would be tantamount to no appeal being filed thereby rendering the challenged decision, resolution or order final and executory.

Admittedly, this rule is not without recognized qualifications. The Court has declared that in appealed cases, failure to pay the appellate court docket fee within the prescribed period warrants only discretionary as opposed to automatic dismissal of the appeal and that the court shall exercise its power to dismiss in accordance with the tenets of justice and fair play and with great deal of circumspection considering all attendant circumstances.[46]
In the case at bench, the justifications presented by petitioner for the non-payment of the docket fees are oversight and the lack of advice from his counsel. Unfortunately, the reasons presented are neither convincing nor adequate to merit leniency. Petitioner submits that he only found out about the requirement to pay the docket fees when he received the CA Resolution denying his appeal on April 22, 2005 or three days short of one year from filing of the said appeal. This Court finds this not to be logically true to human experience. It is unusual for petitioner’s counsel not to advice him of the required docket fees. More often than not, counsels are aware of the docket fees required to be paid to the courts, and will ask clients for the said amount prior to filing pleadings in court. This is so because counsels are not expected to shoulder or advance payment for their clients. Assuming arguendo that petitioner’s counsel did not inform him of the requirement to pay the docket fees to perfect the appeal, what we find incredible is that petitioner apparently failed to communicate with his counsel after the filing of said appeal. This Court has repeatedly held that “litigants, represented by counsel, should not expect that all they need to do is sit back, relax and await the outcome of their case.[47] “It is the duty of a party-litigant to be in contact with his counsel from time to time in order to be informed of the progress of his case.[48] Moreover, the counsel’s negligence binds petitioner and, for that reason alone the loss of his remedy was caused by his own negligence.[49] Consequently, a relaxation of the rule cannot be granted.[50] The bitter consequence of such grave inadvertence is to render the trial court’s order final and executory.[51]

Further, the Court notes that petitioner only attempted to perfect his appeal on May 6, 2005 by appending the postal money orders to his Motion for Reconsideration, or one year and nine days too late.[52] By that time, the challenged

Order has long become final and no longer open to an appeal.[53]

Petitioner’s reliance on the policy espoused in the case of Yambao[54] is likewise unavailing. The pertinent portion relied on by petitioner reads:

Thus, 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 his 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. x x x[55] (Emphasis supplied.)


Clearly, the case applies to a situation where payment of the docket fees was made albeit incomplete. In the instant case, no payment was made by petitioner at all. Even assuming arguendo that Yambao is applicable to petitioner’s case, still, the Court sees no justifiable reason to allow this Court to relax the strict application of the Rules.
x x x."