Ang vs. Court of Appeals

The full payment of appellate docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory and necessary to perfect an appeal; failure to pay the appellate court docket fee within the reglementary period warrants only discretionary, as opposed to automatic, dismissal of the appeal, and the court shall exercise its power to dismiss in accordance with the tenets of justice and fair play and with a great deal of circumspection considering all attendant circumstances. The party claiming payment bears the burden of substantiating such claim with sufficient evidence.

Ligaya Ang and her spouse were defendants in an unlawful detainer case filed by Warren Gutierrez, who claimed ownership of a 94-square meter lot registered under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 013-2015003219. The dispute arose from a 1998 installment sale agreement wherein Warren sold the lot to the Spouses Ang, with a stipulation that the contract would be extinguished in case of non-payment of monthly amortizations. The case involved the application of Republic Act No. 6552 (Realty Installment Buyer Protection Act), which the Spouses Ang invoked as a defense, and the procedural requirements for perfecting an appeal under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court.

In 2016, Warren Gutierrez filed an action for unlawful detainer against Spouses Ricardo and Ligaya Ang before the Metropolitan Trial Court, alleging that he was the owner of a 94-square meter lot registered under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 013-2015003219. On December 29, 1998, Warren sold the lot on installment basis to Spouses Ang, with the agreement that the contract shall be extinguished in case of non-payment of monthly amortizations. The parties agreed on the following terms: P200,000.00 purchase price; P50,000.00 upon signing of the contract; and P10,000.00 monthly amortizations, with a stipulation that if the second party failed to pay even one month's installment, the contract would become void and any prior payments would be forfeited in favor of the first party. After giving the initial payment, however, Spouses Ang refused to settle the balance of the purchase price despite repeated demands.

In their answer, Spouses Ang moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter and claimed that the ejectment case must fail because the contract was not validly cancelled in accordance with Republic Act No. 6552. On November 15, 2016, the MeTC ruled in favor of Warren, ordering Spouses Ang to vacate the lot, pay reasonable compensation for use and occupancy at P5,000.00 monthly starting December 2015 with legal interest of six percent per annum from judicial demand on March 14, 2016, pay attorney's fees of P10,000.00, and pay costs of suit. The MeTC held that the complaint sufficiently alleged and proved a cause of action for unlawful detainer and that RA No. 6552 was inapplicable since Spouses Ang failed to pay any installment.

Spouses Ang appealed to the Regional Trial Court, which on July 3, 2017 affirmed the MeTC's findings in toto, explaining that the requisites for filing an action for unlawful detainer were present and that Spouses Ang could not invoke RA No. 6552 because they failed to pay any monthly amortization for 17 years after signing the contract. Unsuccessful at a reconsideration, Ligaya Ang elevated the case to the Court of Appeals through a motion for extension of time to file a Petition for Review under Rule 42. On September 22, 2017, the CA denied the motion for non-payment of docket fees, stating that the petitioner merely filed her motion for extension without paying in full the amount of docket and other lawful fees.

Ligaya sought reconsideration, arguing that her counsel's messenger was unable to purchase postal money orders on the last day for filing the motion for extension of time, so the messenger decided to enclose the docket fees of P4,730.00 in the envelope containing the motion. The messenger allegedly panicked and thought he would not be able to file the motion on time if he transferred to another post office. As supporting evidence, she submitted the messenger's affidavit, invoked liberal application of the rules, insinuated that the money might have been stolen, and manifested that she already filed her petition for review and expressed willingness to pay again the docket fees. On February 20, 2018, the CA denied the motion for lack of merit, noting that the sworn statements of the personnel assigned to the appellate court's receiving section belied the narrations in the messenger's affidavit, and that Ligaya failed to comply with her commitment to pay again the docket fees. The receiving section personnel stated that upon receipt of the transmittal letter, they carefully checked if a postal money order or any cash was attached to the motion, and upon diligent verification, discovered that no PMO or cash was included in the motion which was enclosed in a small white mailing envelope.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Ligaya contended that the CA acted with grave abuse of discretion when it denied her motion for extension of time and refused to admit her petition for review for non-payment of the required docket and other lawful fees.
• Full Payment of Fees: Ligaya maintained that she fully paid the required fees, arguing that her counsel's messenger enclosed the docket fees of P4,730.00 in the envelope containing the motion for extension of time after being unable to purchase postal money orders on the last day for filing.
• Liberal Application of Rules: Ligaya prayed for liberal interpretation of the rules, insinuating that the money might have been stolen and invoking the messenger's panic as justification for the irregular manner of payment.

• Non-Payment of Docket Fees: The CA, through its resolutions, maintained that the motion for extension of time was properly denied for non-payment of docket fees, as the petitioner failed to pay in full the amount of docket and other lawful fees.
• Unsubstantiated Claims: The CA found that the sworn statements of the personnel assigned to its receiving section belied the narrations in the messenger's affidavit, and that the petitioner's allegations of theft were bare and self-serving allegations bereft of merit.
• Failure to Comply with Commitment: The CA noted that contrary to her pretense of good faith, Ligaya failed to enclose in her Urgent Motion for Reconsideration the corresponding postal money orders as payment for the docket and other lawful fees, despite her manifestation of willingness to pay again.

• Payment of Docket Fees: Whether the appellate docket fees were duly paid.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in denying Ligaya's motion for extension of time and refusing to admit her petition for review for non-payment of the required docket and other lawful fees.
• Liberal Application of Rules: Whether Ligaya showed any compelling reason to warrant a liberal application of the rules.

• Payment of Docket Fees: No. Ligaya failed to establish that the appellate docket fees were duly paid. The messenger's affidavit was insufficient to establish payment, there was no evidence such as photocopies of the money bills to prove that the envelope contained actual cash payment, and the CA's investigation confirmed that no payment was actually remitted.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: No. The CA did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it denied Ligaya's motion for extension of time and refused to admit her petition for review for non-payment of the required docket fees, as the full payment of docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory and necessary to perfect the appeal.
• Liberal Application of Rules: No. Ligaya has not shown any compelling reason to warrant a liberal application of the rules; the alleged theft was speculative, and the justifications regarding the messenger's panic were neither convincing nor adequate to merit leniency.

• Payment of Docket Fees: The Court found that Ligaya failed to establish that the appellate docket fees were duly paid. Foremost, the messenger's affidavit was insufficient to establish payment, as it merely stated the reason why the messenger opted to enclose the docket fees together with the motion for extension, without providing evidence such as photocopies of the money bills to prove that the envelope contained actual cash payment. The affidavit was likewise suspect since it was executed only after the CA denied the motion. At any rate, the CA had conducted an investigation and confirmed that no payment was actually remitted, with the personnel assigned to the appellate court's receiving section corroborating this finding. Moreover, Ligaya's manifestation to pay again the docket fees was inconsistent with her claim of payment, following the Court's observation in Mendoza vs. Court of Appeals that if the petitioner's allegations were true, there would be no reason to pray for permission to pay once more the docketing fee.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: The Court held that the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process; it is merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. Rule 42 of the Rules of Court requires a party desiring to appeal from a decision of the RTC rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction to file a verified petition for review with the CA, paying at the same time the corresponding docket and other lawful fees. The grant of any extension for the filing of a Petition for Review under Rule 42 is discretionary and subject to the condition that the full amount of the docket and lawful fees are paid before the expiration of the reglementary period. The full payment of docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory and necessary to perfect the appeal, and the non-payment of docket fees is a ground to dismiss the appeal. While the Court in Buenaflor vs. Court of Appeals qualified this rule by declaring that failure to pay the appellate court docket fee within the reglementary period warrants only discretionary as opposed to automatic dismissal, and that the court shall exercise its power to dismiss in accordance with the tenets of justice and fair play, the circumstances in this case did not warrant leniency.

• Liberal Application of Rules: The Court found that Ligaya has not shown any compelling reason to warrant a liberal application of the rules. The alleged theft was speculative. The justifications that the messenger panicked because he was unable to purchase postal money orders and that he might not be able to file the motion on time if he would transfer to another post office were neither convincing nor adequate to merit leniency. Ligaya's counsel could have asked the messenger to buy postal money orders in advance instead of waiting for the last minute in filing the motion. It is only when persuasive reasons exist that the rules may be relaxed to spare a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure. In this case, Ligaya was under no threat of suffering an injustice if her prayer was not granted; quite the contrary, it would be unfair to reinstate Ligaya's appeal as this would mean further waiting on the part of the private respondent who has long been deprived of the right to possess the property he owns.

• Mandatory Payment of Docket Fees — The full payment of docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory and necessary to perfect an appeal. Non-payment of docket fees is a ground to dismiss the appeal. However, failure to pay the appellate court docket fee within the reglementary period warrants only discretionary, as opposed to automatic, dismissal of the appeal, and the court shall exercise its power to dismiss in accordance with the tenets of justice and fair play and with a great deal of circumspection considering all attendant circumstances.

• Right to Appeal as Statutory Privilege — The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process; it is merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. One who seeks to avail of the right to appeal must comply strictly with the requirements of the rules; failure to do so often leads to the loss of the right to appeal.

• Burden of Proof in Claiming Payment of Docket Fees — A party claiming payment of docket fees bears the burden of substantiating such claim. An affidavit executed after the denial of a motion, without supporting evidence such as photocopies of money bills, is insufficient to establish payment. A manifestation to pay again the docket fees is inconsistent with a claim of prior payment.

• Liberal Application of Rules — The rules may be relaxed only when persuasive reasons exist to spare a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure. Speculative allegations of theft and unconvincing justifications for irregular payment methods do not constitute compelling reasons warranting leniency.

• "The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. One who seeks to avail of the right to appeal must comply strictly with the requirements of the rules. Failure to do so often leads to the loss of the right to appeal." — This passage establishes the foundational principle that the right to appeal is a statutory privilege subject to strict compliance with procedural rules, forming the basis for the Court's dismissal of the petition.

• "Indeed, the full payment of docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory and necessary to perfect the appeal. Corollarily, the non-payment of docket lees is a ground to dismiss the appeal." — This states the controlling rule on the mandatory nature of docket fee payment as a requirement for perfecting an appeal, which was central to the Court's ruling.

• "In Buenaflor v. Court of Appeals, however, we qualified this rule, and declared, first, that the failure to pay the appellate court docket fee within the reglementary period warrants only discretionary as opposed to automatic dismissal of the appeal; and second, that the court shall exercise its power to dismiss in accordance with the tenets of justice and fair play and with a great deal of circumspection considering all attendant circumstances." — This passage articulates the qualified rule on discretionary dismissal, which the Court applied in evaluating whether the CA properly exercised its discretion.

• "It is only when persuasive reasons exist that the rules may be relaxed to spare a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure. In this case, Ligaya is under no threat of suffering an injustice if her prayer is not granted. Quite the contrary, it will be unfair if we reinstate Ligaya's appeal as this would mean further waiting on the part of the private respondent who has long been deprived of the right to possess the property he owns." — This passage articulates the standard for liberal application of the rules and the Court's balancing of interests between the litigant's right to appeal and the prevailing party's right to enjoy the fruits of judgment.

• Buenaflor vs. Court of Appeals, 400 Phil. 395 (2000) — Controlling precedent that qualified the rule on dismissal for non-payment of docket fees, declaring that such failure warrants only discretionary as opposed to automatic dismissal, and that the court shall exercise its power to dismiss with great circumspection considering all attendant circumstances. Distinguished on the facts, as in that case the postal money orders were actually delivered to the trial court, whereas in the present case no payment was established.

• American Express International, Inc. vs. Sison, 591 Phil. 182 (2008) — Followed; cited for the proposition that there is no specific manner of paying docket or appeal fees, but the party claiming payment must substantiate the claim. The Court applied the same standard, finding that Ligaya failed to discharge her burden of proof.

• Mendoza vs. Court of Appeals, 545 Phil. 198 (2007) — Followed; cited for the principle that a petitioner's insistence that he enclosed docket fees in the mailing envelope is unpersuasive, especially when the petitioner prayed in his motion for reconsideration that he be allowed to pay once more the docketing fee, which is inconsistent with a claim of prior payment.

• Reyes vs. People, 764 Phil. 294 (2015) — Cited for the proposition that the grant of any extension for the filing of a Petition for Review under Rule 42 is discretionary and subject to the condition that the full amount of the docket and lawful fees are paid before the expiration of the reglementary period.

• The Heirs of the late Ruben Reinoso, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals, 669 Phil. 272 (2011) — Cited for the rule that the full payment of docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory.

• Meatmasters International Corporation vs. Lelis Integrated Development Corporation, 492 Phil. 698 (2005) — Cited for the proposition that full payment of docket fees is necessary to perfect the appeal.

• Gipa vs. Southern Luzon Institute, 736 Phil. 515 (2014) — Cited for the rule that non-payment of docket fees is a ground to dismiss the appeal.

• Sebastian vs. Morales, 445 Phil. 595 (2003) — Cited for the principle that it is only when persuasive reasons exist that the rules may be relaxed to spare a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure.

• Section 1, Rule 42, Rules of Court — Provides the requirements in appealing a Decision of the RTC rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, including the payment of docket and other lawful fees, the deposit of P500.00 for costs, and the filing of the petition within fifteen days from notice of the decision sought to be reviewed. The Court applied this provision in determining that Ligaya failed to comply with the mandatory requirements for perfecting her appeal.

• Section 3, Rule 42, Rules of Court — Provides that the failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the requirements regarding the payment of docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof. The Court applied this provision in affirming the CA's dismissal of Ligaya's appeal.

• Section 8(a), Rule 42, Rules of Court — Provides that upon the timely filing of a petition for review and the payment of the corresponding docket and other lawful fees, the appeal is deemed perfected as to the petitioner. The Court applied this provision in holding that the appeal was not perfected due to non-payment of docket fees.

• Republic Act No. 6552 (Realty Installment Buyer Protection Act) — Invoked by Spouses Ang as a defense in the unlawful detainer case, but held inapplicable by the MeTC and RTC because they failed to pay any installment. The Supreme Court did not disturb this finding.

Peralta, C.J. (Chairperson), Caguioa, J. Reyes, Jr., Lazaro-Javier, and Lopez, JJ., concurred in the decision.

N/A — No dissenting opinion was noted in the provided case text.