National Transmission Corp. v. Ebesa
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The National Transmission Corporation (NTC), a government-owned and controlled corporation, initiated an expropriation case to acquire a 1,479-square-meter portion of Lot No. 18470 in Cebu City. This acquisition was deemed necessary for the construction and maintenance of a 138KV DC/ST Transmission Line, a project serving a public purpose. The property was co-owned by the heirs of Teodulo Ebesa and occupied by Atty. Fortunato Veloso, who had purchased it via an unregistered deed of sale. Veloso contested the necessity and urgency of the expropriation, arguing that the project would not only affect a portion but the entirety of the property, impacting its marketability and air space. 2. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City issued an order of expropriation on July 15, 2005, and subsequently a writ of possession on July 21, 2005, after NTC deposited the assessed value of the property. Commissioners were appointed to determine just compensation, and their report, with a majority opinion valuing the property at P6,222.42 per square meter and noting consequential damages, was submitted. The RTC, in its January 9, 2006 decision, fixed the just compensation at P35,179,984.88, plus interest, and directed NTC to either pay this amount and retain possession or return the property. NTC's motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to its appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA). 3. The Petition: The NTC filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's Resolution that dismissed its appeal. The CA dismissed the appeal primarily due to NTC's failure to pay the required appeal fees, despite being directed to submit proof of payment. The CA also noted that even if the fees were paid, the appeal would fail for not filing a record on appeal. NTC argued that the dismissal was discretionary, not automatic, and that its failure to pay was due to erroneous advice from the RTC's receiving clerk, constituting excusable neglect. It also contended that a record on appeal was unnecessary as the appeal only concerned the determination of just compensation, not the initial order of expropriation.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal for non-payment of appeal docket fees. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal for failure to file a record on appeal.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the Resolution of the Court of Appeals, dismissing the appeal filed by the National Transmission Corporation (NTC).
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of non-payment of appeal docket fees: The Court reiterated that the right to appeal is a statutory privilege that must be exercised in accordance with law, requiring strict compliance with procedural rules. The payment of docket fees is mandatory and jurisdictional; failure to pay within the reglementary period results in the loss of the right to appeal and renders the judgment final and executory. The Court found NTC's reliance on the erroneous advice of the RTC receiving clerk to be an unacceptable excuse for its failure to pay, especially since NTC had ample time to verify its supposed exemption and had paid initial filing fees. The Court distinguished this case from instances where liberality was applied, noting that NTC did not take initiative to verify or pay until required by the CA, and its payment was made six months after the appeal period prescribed. The Court emphasized that the payment of docket fees is a sine qua non for the perfection of an appeal, and the court acquires jurisdiction only upon such payment. On the issue of failure to file a record on appeal: The Court affirmed the CA's ruling that even if the appeal fees were timely paid, the appeal would still not prosper due to the failure to file a record on appeal. The Court clarified that multiple or separate appeals can exist in expropriation cases, even if only the issue of just compensation is being appealed. In such instances, a record on appeal is required to enable the appellate court to decide the appeal without the original record, which should remain with the trial court. The Court cited National Power Corporation v. Judge Paderanga to support the requirement of a record on appeal in cases with multiple stages or potential separate appeals, even when only the determination of just compensation is being questioned, as other parties might still file their own appeals. The Court concluded that NTC's insistence that a record on appeal was unnecessary lacked factual and legal basis.
Main Doctrine
Failure to pay appellate docket fees within the reglementary period is a jurisdictional defect that warrants dismissal of the appeal, and such failure is not excused by the erroneous advice of a court receiving clerk, especially when the appellant had ample time to verify and rectify the omission.