Spouses Lee v. Land Bank of the Philippines

Full payment of appellate docket and other lawful fees within the prescribed period is mandatory and jurisdictional for the perfection of an appeal; absent such payment, the appeal is not perfected, the trial court retains jurisdiction over the case, and its decision becomes final and executory. A prior order giving due course to an appeal does not preclude the trial court from subsequently examining the records to verify compliance with all jurisdictional requirements, including actual payment of docket fees.

Petitioners-spouses Edmond Lee and Helen Huang are the registered owners of parcels of land with an aggregate area of 5.4928 hectares situated in Mambog, Hermosa, Bataan, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-26257. The property was compulsorily acquired by the Department of Agrarian Reform pursuant to Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988. Respondent Land Bank of the Philippines, acting as the government's valuation arm, offered ₱109,429.98 as just compensation for the 1.5073-hectare portion of the subject property, which petitioners rejected, prompting them to file a petition for determination of just compensation before the RTC sitting as a Special Agrarian Court.

Petitioners-spouses Edmond Lee and Helen Huang are the registered owners of parcels of land with an aggregate area of 5.4928 hectares situated in Mambog, Hermosa, Bataan, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-26257 of the Register of Deeds of Bataan. The subject property was compulsorily acquired by the Department of Agrarian Reform under Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988. Respondent Land Bank of the Philippines offered ₱109,429.98 as just compensation for the 1.5073-hectare portion of the property. Petitioners rejected the valuation and filed a petition for determination of just compensation before the Regional Trial Court of Balanga City, Bataan, Branch 1, sitting as a Special Agrarian Court, docketed as Civil Case No. 7171. In defense, respondent claimed its valuation was based on DAR Administrative Order No. 11, series of 1994, as amended by DAR Administrative Order No. 5, series of 1998, and contended that petitioners' appraisal was biased.

After due proceedings, the RTC rendered a Decision dated January 17, 2002, rejecting respondent's valuation and setting just compensation at ₱250.00 per square meter, or a total of ₱3,768,250.00, taking judicial notice that lots within the vicinity were valued between ₱200.00 and ₱500.00 per square meter. Respondent's motion for reconsideration was denied in an Order dated June 14, 2002. Respondent thereafter filed a Notice of Appeal dated June 19, 2002. Several years later, in September 2006, petitioners filed a motion for execution, alleging that upon verification, no appeal had actually been filed before the RTC. Respondent countered that it had perfected its appeal, rendering the January 17, 2002 Decision not yet final and executory.

The RTC, in an Order dated June 7, 2007, gave due course to respondent's appeal and directed transmittal of the records to the CA, finding that respondent had perfected its appeal and invoking equitable considerations and the highest interest of justice. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied in an Order dated August 27, 2008, with the RTC clarifying that respondent had filed its Notice of Appeal within the prescribed period and had issued a postal money order in the amount of ₱520.00 in favor of the Clerk of Court as payment of the appeal fee.

Almost five years later, on April 26, 2013, petitioners filed a motion to dismiss respondent's appeal for failure to prosecute, alleging that respondent had taken no further action on its appeal since 2008, particularly with respect to payment of prescribed appeal fees. Respondent countered that the RTC no longer had jurisdiction after its Notice of Appeal had been given due course and that the motion should have been filed before the CA. In its Order dated July 5, 2013, the RTC, through Judge Angelito I. Balderama, granted the motion and dismissed respondent's appeal. Upon meticulous inspection of the records, the RTC found that while respondent had issued Postal Money Order No. J8353389-390, the amount pertaining thereto had never been remitted or credited to the account of the Office of the Clerk of Court. The OIC Clerk of Court, Mr. Gelbert Argonza, explained that respondent's failure to pay the appeal fees was the reason the case records were not transmitted to the CA, as proof of payment is a required attachment forming part of the records to be transmitted. The RTC held that payment of docket and other legal fees within the prescribed period is both mandatory and jurisdictional, and accordingly dismissed the appeal for failure to prosecute. Respondent's motion for reconsideration was denied in an Order dated December 11, 2013.

• Failure to Prosecute: Petitioners argued that from the time the RTC gave due course to respondent's appeal in 2008, respondent had not taken any further action, particularly with regard to the payment of prescribed appeal fees, warranting dismissal of the appeal for failure to prosecute.
• Lack of Appellate Records: Petitioners alleged that they originally attempted to file their motion to dismiss before the CA, but it was rejected because there were no case docket and court records pertaining to respondent's appeal, corroborating the fact that the appeal had not been perfected.

• Loss of RTC Jurisdiction: Respondent argued that the RTC no longer had jurisdiction to entertain petitioners' motion to dismiss after its Notice of Appeal had been given due course, and that the motion should have been filed before the CA, not the RTC.
• Prior Adjudication of Appeal Validity: Respondent maintained, through the CA's ruling, that the validity of its appeal had already been passed upon and upheld in the RTC's earlier Orders dated June 7, 2007 and August 27, 2008, which gave due course to the appeal and directed transmittal of records to the CA, such that any subsequent RTC orders were of no force and effect.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC when it dismissed respondent's appeal for failure to prosecute.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: No. The CA erred in finding grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. Respondent failed to perfect its appeal because the full amount of prescribed appellate docket fees was never actually paid to the court, rendering the RTC's dismissal of the appeal for failure to prosecute proper and its January 17, 2002 Decision final and executory.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Under Section 4, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, the appellant must pay the full amount of appellate court docket and other lawful fees to the clerk of court of the court rendering the judgment within the period for taking an appeal, and proof of payment must be transmitted to the appellate court. This requirement is not merely directory but mandatory and jurisdictional, as clarified in Gipa vs. Southern Luzon Institute, citing Gonzales vs. Pe. Without such payment, the appeal is not perfected, the appellate court does not acquire jurisdiction, and the decision sought to be appealed becomes final and executory. Upon a punctilious review of the records, the Court found that respondent failed to perfect its appeal. While respondent had issued a postal money order in favor of the Office of the Clerk of Court, the OIC Clerk of Court, Mr. Argonza, confirmed that the amount was never remitted or received by the court, which was why the records could not be transmitted to the CA. This fact also explained why petitioners' attempt to file their motion to dismiss before the CA was rejected — there were no records or docket pertaining to respondent's appeal. Under Section 9, Rule 41, the court loses jurisdiction over the case only upon the perfection of appeals filed in due time and the expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties. Because respondent's appeal was not perfected due to non-payment of docket fees, the RTC retained jurisdiction and properly dismissed the appeal. The Court further noted that almost five years had lapsed from the time the Notice of Appeal was given due course without respondent taking any action, indicating abandonment of the appeal. Even assuming arguendo that payment had been made, respondent failed to exercise diligence in ascertaining whether the records had been transmitted and its appeal given due course. The RTC's prior orders giving due course to the appeal did not preclude it from re-examining the records to ensure compliance with all jurisdictional requirements. Respondent could have produced proof of payment to dispel doubts but failed to do so. Perfection of an appeal within the period and in the manner prescribed by law is jurisdictional, and non-compliance is fatal, rendering the judgment final and executory.

• Mandatory and Jurisdictional Nature of Docket Fee Payment — The payment of the full amount of appellate docket and other lawful fees within the prescribed period is both mandatory and jurisdictional for the perfection of an appeal. It is not a mere technicality of law or procedure. Without such payment, the appeal is not perfected, the appellate court does not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter, and the decision appealed from becomes final and executory. The Court applied this doctrine by finding that respondent's issuance of a postal money order, without actual remittance or receipt by the court, did not constitute payment, and thus the appeal was never perfected.

• Right to Appeal as a Statutory Privilege — An appeal is not a right but a mere statutory privilege. The one who seeks to avail of that right must comply with the statute or rules. The Court invoked this principle to emphasize that respondent's failure to comply with the requirement of full payment of docket fees precluded it from enjoying the privilege of appeal.

• Retention of Trial Court Jurisdiction Until Perfected Appeal — Under Section 9, Rule 41, the trial court loses jurisdiction over the case only upon the perfection of appeals filed in due time and the expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties. Where the appeal is not perfected due to non-payment of docket fees, the trial court retains jurisdiction and may dismiss the appeal for failure to prosecute.

• "The procedural requirement under Section 4 of Rule 41 is not merely directory, as the payment of the docket and other legal fees within the prescribed period is both mandatory and jurisdictional. It bears stressing that an appeal is not a right, but a mere statutory privilege." — This passage, quoting Gipa vs. Southern Luzon Institute, articulates the foundational rule on the jurisdictional character of docket fee payment that governs the disposition of the case.

• "The requirement of paying the full amount of the appellate docket fees within the prescribed period is not a mere technicality of law or procedure. The payment of docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory for the perfection of an appeal. Without such payment, the appeal is not perfected." — This formulation, also drawn from Gipa, is the canonical statement frequently cited in subsequent jurisprudence on the consequences of non-payment of appellate docket fees.

• "Perfection of an appeal within the period and in the manner prescribed by law is jurisdictional and non-compliance with such requirements is considered fatal and has the effect of rendering the judgment final and executory." — This passage states the ratio decidendi connecting the jurisdictional requirement of perfection to the finality of the RTC's January 17, 2002 Decision.

• Gipa vs. Southern Luzon Institute, G.R. No. 177425, June 18, 2014, 726 SCRA 559 — Controlling authority cited for the rule that payment of docket and other legal fees within the prescribed period is mandatory and jurisdictional, and that without such payment the appeal is not perfected and the appellate court does not acquire jurisdiction.

• Gonzales vs. Pe, 670 Phil. 597 (2011) — Cited within Gipa as the source of the clarified rule on the mandatory and jurisdictional nature of docket fee payment; followed as persuasive authority on the same point.

• Pepsi Cola Products (Phils.) vs. Patan, Jr., 464 Phil. 517 (2004) — Cited in support of the proposition that respondent's neglect of its case constituted abandonment of the appeal, justifying dismissal for failure to prosecute.

• National Power Corporation vs. Sps. Laohoo, 611 Phil. 195 (2009) — Cited alongside Pepsi Cola on the principle of abandonment of appeal through failure to prosecute.

• Yalong vs. People, G.R. No. 187174, August 28, 2013, 704 SCRA 195 — Cited for the doctrine that perfection of an appeal within the period and in the manner prescribed by law is jurisdictional, and non-compliance renders the judgment final and executory.

• De Leon vs. Hercules Agro Industrial Corporation, G.R. No. 183239, June 2, 2014, 724 SCRA 309 — Cited for the principle that the right to appeal is a statutory right and the party seeking to avail of it must comply with the statute or rules.

• Section 4, Rule 41, Rules of Court — Requires the appellant to pay the full amount of appellate court docket and other lawful fees to the clerk of court of the court rendering the judgment within the period for taking an appeal, with proof of payment to be transmitted to the appellate court. Applied as the jurisdictional basis for holding that respondent's appeal was not perfected absent actual payment.

• Section 9, Rule 41, Rules of Court — Governs the perfection of appeal and its effect on the trial court's jurisdiction, providing that the court loses jurisdiction over the case upon the perfection of appeals filed in due time and the expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties. Applied to confirm that because respondent's appeal was not perfected, the RTC retained jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal.

• Section 5, Rule 141, Rules of Court — Authorizes the court to refuse to proceed with an action or proceeding until fees are paid and to dismiss the action or proceedings if fees are not paid. Cited by the RTC as the procedural basis for dismissing respondent's appeal.

• Section 1(c), Rule 50, Rules of Court — Authorizes the CA to dismiss an appeal on the ground of non-payment of docket and other lawful fees within the reglementary period. Cited in Gipa as reinforcing the mandatory nature of docket fee payment.

• Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988) — The statutory framework under which the subject property was compulsorily acquired by the DAR, giving rise to the just compensation dispute.

Sereno, C.J. (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin, and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.