Gonzales v. Pe
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Respondent Quirico Pe supplied cement to petitioner Spouses Rodriguez for construction projects. Petitioner Nestor Rodriguez issued a blank Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) check to respondent Pe as a guarantee for 15,698 bags of cement valued at ₱1,507,008.00. Later, respondent Pe filled the check with the amount of ₱2,062,000.00 and a date of June 30, 1999. Petitioners filed a complaint for declaration of payment, cancellation of documents, and damages, alleging they had paid for all cement received, including 23,360 bags for the Kalibo project valued at ₱2,167,340.00, and that the blank check was meant as collateral to be returned upon payment. Respondent counterclaimed for the outstanding balance of ₱2,062,000.00, claiming the check was dishonored for insufficient funds. 2. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring their obligation paid, the LBP check null and void, and ordering petitioners to pay damages and attorney's fees. Respondent appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals (CA). However, the RTC dismissed respondent's appeal due to the non-payment of docket and other lawful fees, and subsequently issued a writ of execution for the RTC decision. Respondent then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the CA, seeking to set aside the RTC's dismissal order and the writ of execution. The CA granted the petition, setting aside the RTC's order and writ of execution, and directed the RTC to assess and allow respondent to pay the appellate docket fees, giving due course to his appeal. Petitioners sought reconsideration, which was denied by the CA. 3. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, arguing that the CA erred in reversing the RTC decision and allowing the respondent to belatedly pay appellate docket and other legal fees. They contend that the respondent's failure to pay these fees at the time of filing the notice of appeal rendered the appeal unperfected, making the RTC decision final and executory. Petitioners pray for the setting aside of the CA decision and resolution, the lifting of the CA's writ of preliminary injunction, and the reinstatement and prompt execution of the RTC decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the Regional Trial Court's decision and allowing the respondent to belatedly pay the required appellate docket and other legal fees, considering the mandatory and jurisdictional nature of timely docket fee payment. Whether the respondent's appeal was perfected despite the non-payment of docket and other lawful fees within the reglementary period, and the consequences of such non-perfection on the jurisdiction of the courts and the rights of the parties.
Ruling
The petition is meritorious. The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, lifted the Writ of Preliminary Injunction issued by the CA, reinstated the RTC Decision dated June 28, 2002, and remanded the case for its prompt execution.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the Court of Appeals' error regarding belated docket fee payment: The Court reiterated that in ordinary appeals, the payment of appellate court docket and other lawful fees within the reglementary period is a mandatory and jurisdictional requirement as per Section 4 of Rule 41. Failure to do so means the appeal is not perfected, and the appellate court does not acquire jurisdiction, rendering the lower court's decision final and executory. The Court distinguished this case from Yambao v. Court of Appeals, where a deficiency was paid in good faith, noting that here, the respondent made no payment whatsoever. The claim of non-issuance of assessment by the Branch Clerk of Court was deemed insufficient to excuse the procedural lapse. The failure to pay, even if attributable to counsel, is not excusable negligence and binds the client. The RTC, contrary to the CA's premise, does not lose jurisdiction upon giving due course to the notice of appeal but only upon perfection of the appeal and expiration of the appeal time for other parties, as per Section 9, Rule 41. Prior to record transmittal, the RTC may still act on pending incidents. On the issue of perfection of appeal and its consequences: The procedural requirement under Section 4 of Rule 41 is not merely directory; timely payment of docket fees is mandatory for perfecting an appeal. Without it, the appellate court gains no jurisdiction, and the RTC retains jurisdiction to issue orders protecting the prevailing party's rights, such as a writ of execution. The non-perfection of an appeal on time is not a mere technicality but a jurisdictional problem. Therefore, the RTC retains jurisdiction to issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the prevailing party, such as the issuance of a writ of execution.
Main Doctrine
The payment of appellate court docket and other lawful fees within the reglementary period is mandatory and jurisdictional for the perfection of an appeal. Failure to comply with this requirement renders the appeal dismissible and the decision of the lower court final and executory.