As early as 1932, in Lazaro v. Endencia,[17] we have held that the payment of the full amount of the docket fees is an indispensable step for the perfection of an appeal. The Court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fees.[18]
Moreover, the right to appeal is not a natural right and is not part of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege, which may be exercised only in accordance with the law.[19]
We have repeatedly stated that the term “substantial justice” is not a magic wand that would automatically compel this Court to suspend procedural rules. Procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may result in prejudice to a party’s substantive rights. Like all other rules, they are required to be followed, except only for the most persuasive of reasons when they may be relaxed to relieve litigants of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of their thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed.[20]
We cannot consider counsel’s failure to familiarize himself with the Revised Rules of Court as a persuasive reason to relax the application of the Rules. It is well-settled that the negligence of counsel binds the client. This principle is based on the rule that any act performed by lawyers within the scope of their general or implied authority is regarded as an act of the client. Consequently, the mistake or negligence of the counsel of petitioner may result in the rendition of an unfavorable judgment against it.[21]
x x x."
