Tamayo v. Tamayo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners and respondents are half-siblings. Respondents are the legitimate children of Dorothela Dayanghirang-Tamayo with Dr. Jose Tamayo, Sr., while petitioners are her illegitimate children with Jose Matuco. Respondents allegedly took care of Dorothela and petitioners, sent them to school, and facilitated the use of the Tamayo surname. On November 15, 1977, spouses Tamayo executed a Deed of Donation Inter Vivos in favor of respondents, covering two parcels of land. Procedural History: On June 13, 1996, petitioners filed a complaint for the revocation of the donation, alleging they were preterited from the estate of Dr. Jose Tamayo, Sr. and that respondents fraudulently caused the execution of the deed. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 11, Davao City, dismissed the complaint, holding that petitioners failed to offer evidence of the donation, that the issue of preterition could not be resolved without a prior determination of heirs and settlement of Dr. Tamayo's estate, and that the action for revocation on the ground of fraud had prescribed. The Petition: Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) but failed to pay the appellate docket fees. The CA dismissed their appeal. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, tendering manager's checks for the fees and explaining their failure to pay was due to not being advised by the courts when to pay. The CA denied the motion. Hence, the present petition for review on certiorari.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal due to the non-payment of appellate docket fees. Whether the word "may" in Section 1(c), Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure indicates that dismissal for non-payment of docket fees is merely directory, not mandatory.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing petitioners' appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
On the dismissal of the appeal due to non-payment of appellate docket fees: The Court reiterated the doctrinal rule that the perfection of appeals in the manner and within the period permitted by law is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional. Consequently, the payment of docket fees within the prescribed period for taking an appeal is indispensable for the perfection of an appeal. The Court emphasized that anyone seeking exemption from this rule bears the burden of proving exceptionally meritorious instances, which were not found in this case. The Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the appeal for failure to pay the required fees. On whether the word "may" makes dismissal merely directory: The Court clarified that while Section 1(c), Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure uses the word "may," indicating that the CA has the discretion to dismiss an appeal, this discretion is not absolute and must be exercised in accordance with law and jurisprudence. The established jurisprudence is that failure to pay docket fees is a ground for dismissal, and the use of "may" does not render the rule directory. The Court stressed that the right to appeal is a statutory privilege that must be exercised in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The petitioners' counsel's failure to pay the docket fees, despite the rules being in effect for several years, constituted negligence that binds the clients. To grant the petition would be to put a premium on such ignorance or lack of knowledge of existing rules, which cannot be countenanced.
Main Doctrine
The payment of appellate docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory and jurisdictional for the perfection of an appeal. Failure to comply therewith, even due to the negligence of counsel, binds the client and warrants the dismissal of the appeal.