Republic
of the
Supreme
Court
|
PROVINCE OF CAMARINES
SUR, represented by GOVERNOR LUIS R. VILLAFUERTE, Petitioner, -
versus - HEIRS OF AGUSTIN PATO, ADOLFO DEL VALLE BRUSAS and ZENAIDA
BRUSAS; TRIFONA FEDERIS, MAURICIO MEDIALDEA and NELSON TONGCO; MARIANO DE LOS
ANGELES; HEIRS OF MIGUEL PATO, ARACELI BARRAMEDA ACLAN and PONCIANO IRAOLA;
HEIRS OF CRESENCIA VDA. DE Respondents. |
G.R. No. 151084 Present: CARPIO, J.,
Chairperson, NACHURA, PERALTA, ABAD, and MENDOZA, JJ. Promulgated: July 2, 2010 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
PERALTA,
J.:
Before this
Court is a petition for review on certiorari,[1]
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to set aside the Resolutions of
the Court of Appeals (CA) dated
The facts of the case are as follows:
Expropriation
proceedings were initiated by P20,000.00 per hectare, or P2.00
per square meter, as just compensation for their lands. Respondents resisted
the attempt of petitioner to expropriate their properties arguing, among others,
that there was no public necessity. Motions to Dismiss filed by respondents
were, however, denied by the RTC. After a protracted litigation that led to the
appointment of Commissioners to determine the proper value of the properties,
the RTC rendered a Decision,[4]
the dispositive portion of which reads:
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered:
1.
Expropriating, in
favor of plaintiff Province, for the public use detailed in its complaint, and
in Res. No. 129, S. of 1998, the lands described in its pars. 1 and 4,
consolidated complaint, as further described its sketch plan, p. 361 records;
2.
Condemning
plaintiff to pay defendants as just compensation for the land, owned by
defendants named in the consolidated complaint and enumerated in Annex A as
well as the improvements standing thereon, at the time this decision is
executed, and set forth in Annex C hereof, which is made an integral part of
this decision, with 6% interest per annum from the date cases were individually
filed until paid; and
3.
Condemning
plaintiff to pay Financial Assistance per E.O. 1035, Sec. 18 to the tenants
mentioned in the summary of the commissioner’s report and enumerated in Annex
A; and to pay Commissioners Co, Altar and Malali, P5,000.00 each, immediately.
NO COSTS.
SO ORDERED.[5]
The RTC ruled that the reasonable value of the lands to be expropriated were as follows:
Irrigated riceland – P9.00 per sq. m.
Unirrigated riceland, coconut
land, orchard – P8.00 per sq. m.
Residential land – P120.00 per sq. m.[6]
Petitioner
filed a Motion for Reconsideration[7]
to the RTC Decision, specifically arguing that the value of just compensation
should only be P20,000.00 per hectare,
or P2.00 per square meter. Petitioner
argued that such value was the amount awarded by other RTCs in the area, which
involved landholdings of the same condition as that of the subject properties.
On June 9, 2000, the RTC issued an Omnibus Order[8] denying petitioner’s motion to reduce the valuations it made.
On June 15, 2000, petitioner filed with the RTC a Notice of Appeal.[9]
On May 31, 2001, the CA issued a Resolution[10] dismissing the appeal of petitioner for failure to pay the docket fees, thus:
x x x
x
The
Court RESOLVES to:
x x x x
(d) DISMISS the appeal of
plaintiff-appellant
Aggrieved, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration,[12] which was, however, denied by the CA in a Resolution[13] dated November 19, 2001.
Hence, herein petition, with petitioner raising the following errors committed by the CA, to wit:
i.
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED AND
GROSSLY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF HEREIN PETITIONER
PROVINCE OF CAMARINES SUR AND IN DENYING ITS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION SUCH
DISMISSAL AND DENIAL BEING ENTIRELY NOT IN ACCORD AND DIRECTLY IN CONTRAVENTION
WITH THE APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE INSTANT CASE,
CONSIDERING THE ATTENDANT CIRCUMSTANCES HEREIN WHICH JUSTIFY THE LIBERAL
INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THE RULES OF COURT.
ii.
THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN
DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF HEREIN PETITIONER PROVINCE OF CAMARINES SUR SINCE SAID
APPEAL IS EXCEPTIONALLY MERITORIOUS AS THE APPEALED DECISION COMPLETELY
DEPARTED FROM THE APPLICABLE RULES AND DULY ESTABLISHED JURISPRUDENCE IN THE
DETERMINATION OF JUST COMPENSATION IN EXPROPRIATION CASES AND INSTEAD THE JUDGE
IN THE LOWER COURT USED HIS OWN PERSONAL VIEW AND BELIEF IN COMING UP WITH THE
VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AS TO URGENTLY REQUIRE THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF
JUDICIAL INTERVENTION AND SUPERVISION BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.
iii.
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED
REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT DENIED THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION FILED BY HEREIN
PETITIONER AND AFFIRMED ITS RESOLUTION DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF HEREIN
PETITIONER PROVINCE BY CITING ONE CASE WHICH IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THIS INSTANT
CASE AND CITING ANOTHER WHICH IS, IN FACT, SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL OF HEREIN
PETITIONER.[14]
At the crux of the controversy is a determination of the propriety of the CA’s resolution dismissing petitioner’s appeal for failure to pay the docket fees. In its Motion for Reconsideration[15] before the CA, petitioner argued that its failure to pay the docket fees was due to the honest inadvertence and excusable negligence of its former counsel, Atty. Victor D.R. Catangui, to wit:
x x x x
1.
The failure of
the former counsel of herein Plaintiff-Appellant Province of Camarines Sur (the
late Atty. Victor D.R. Catangui) to pay or caused to be paid the appellate
court docket fees was committed through honest inadvertence and excusable
negligence, since during the time that the notice of appeal was filed, said
counsel was already having health problems affecting his heart that
substantially distracted him from faithfully performing his duties and
functions as Provincial Legal Officer, including that as counsel of herein
Plaintiff-Appellant Province of Camarines Sur in the above-entitled case;
2.
That it was the
same physical condition that forced him to resign as Provincial Legal Officer
effective January 2, 2001 as the distance between his office in Provincial
Capitol Complex, Cadlan, Pili, Camarines Sur and that of his residence in San
Roque, Iriga City, which is, more or less than 27 kilometers is too much for
him to physically endure;
3.
That,
notwithstanding his resignation from the Provincial Government of Camarines Sur
and subsequent transfer to a much nearer office in
This Court is not convinced. Time and time again, this Court has consistently held that the payment of docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory for the perfection of an appeal. Without such payment, the appellate court does not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action and the decision sought to be appealed from becomes final and executory.[17]
Records disclose that petitioner’s former counsel Atty. Catangui filed a Notice of Appeal on June 15, 2000. On January 15, 2001, Atty. Catangui filed a Motion with the CA notifying the same that he was withdrawing as counsel for petitioner. On May 31, 2001, the CA issued the first assailed Resolution, which noted the motion of Atty. Catangui to withdraw as counsel and which also dismissed petitioner’s appeal for failure to pay the docket fees. Said resolution was sent to petitioner via registered mail and was received by petitioner’s agent, a certain Loningning Noora-Papa, as evidenced by the Registry Return Receipt.[18] It was only on August 2, 2001 that the CA received the Entry of Appearance[19] of petitioner’s new counsel, Atty. Elias A. Torallo, Jr. With the appearance of Atty. Torallo, the CA resent the May 31, 2001 Resolution informing him of the dismissal of the petition. On September 11, 2001, a day after receiving said Resolution, Atty. Torallo paid the corresponding docket fees.
From the time Atty. Torallo paid the corresponding docket fees, approximately 15 months had already lapsed from the time the notice of appeal was filed by petitioner’s former counsel Atty. Catangui. This is to this Court’s mind, already too late in the day.
While the
strict application of the jurisdictional nature of the rule on payment of
appellate docket fees may be mitigated under exceptional circumstances to better
serve the interest of justice,[20]
such circumstances are not present in the case at bar.
Petitioner’s
attempt to pass the buck on the sickness of its former counsel, Atty. Catangui,
is not a compelling reason for this Court to relax the strict requirement for
the timely payment of appellate docket fees. While this Court expresses grief
over the death of Atty. Catangui, his sickness[21]
was not of such a nature which would have impaired his mental faculties and one
which would have prevented him from filing the docket fees. From the time he
filed a notice of appeal assailing the RTC Decision, Atty. Catangui was still
the Provincial Legal Officer for 6 months prior to his transfer to his new post
at the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples. Even if the corresponding
docket fees were not paid upon the filing of the notice of appeal, still, Atty.
Catangui could have rectified the situation by paying the fees within the
15-day reglementary period to file an appeal.
As manifested by petitioner, Atty. Catangui was in the practice of law
for 10 years, he should have, therefore, seen to it that the stringent
requirements for an appeal were complied with.
M. A. Santander Construction Inc.
v. Villanueva[22]
is instructive, thus:
In the instant case,
petitioner received a copy of the Decision of the trial court on March 3, 1998.
Accordingly, it had, pursuant to Section 3, Rule 41, until March 18, 1998
within which to perfect its appeal by filing within that period the Notice of
Appeal and paying the appellate docket and other legal fees. While petitioner
filed the Notice of Appeal on March 9, 1998, or within the reglementary period,
however, it paid the required docket fees only on November 13, 1998, or late by
7 months and 25 days.
The mere filing of
the Notice of Appeal is not enough, for it must be accompanied by the payment
of the correct appellate docket fees. Payment in
full of docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory. It is an essential requirement without which the decision appealed from
would become final and executory as if no appeal had been filed. Failure to
perfect an appeal within the prescribed period is not a mere technicality but
jurisdictional and failure to perfect an appeal renders the judgment final and
executory.
In
Guevarra vs. Court of Appeals, where the docket fees
were not paid in full within the prescribed period of fifteen (15) days but
were paid forty-one (41) days late due to "inadvertence, oversight, and
pressure of work," we held that the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed
the appeal. In Lee vs. Republic of the
Withal,
it bears to stress that Appeal is not a constitutional right, but a mere
statutory privilege. It must be exercised strictly in accordance with the
provisions of the law and rules. Specifically, the payment of docket fees
within the period for perfecting an appeal is mandatory. In the present case,
petitioner has not given sufficient reason why it should be exempt from this
stringent rule.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The Resolutions of the Court of Appeals, dated May 31, 2001 and November 19, 2001, in CA-G.R. CV No. 69735, are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice Associate Justice
JOSE CATRAL
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I
attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Second
Division, Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of
the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
* The Court approved the
Extra-Judicial Settlement with Compromise Sale executed by the Heirs of San
Joaquin per Resolution dated
[1]
Rollo, pp. 10-43.
[2]
[3]
Penned by Associate Justice
Jose L. Sabio, Jr., with Presiding Justice Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez (retired
member of this Court) and Associate Justice Hilarion L. Aquino, concurring; id. at 49-50.
[4]
Rollo, pp. 63-68.
[5]
[6]
[7]
Records, vol. 3, pp.
1493-1519.
[8]
[9]
[10] Rollo, pp.
45-46.
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
Yambao v. Court of
Appeals, 399 Phil. 712,
717-718 (2000).
[18]
CA rollo, p. 64. (Dorsal side.)
[19]
[20]
Ayala Land, Inc. v. Spouses Carpo, 399 Phil. 327, 335 (2000).
[21]
The medical history of Atty.
Catangui reveals that he was suffering from diabetes mellitus type 2 and
hypertensive cardiovascular disease; rollo,
pp. 70-71.
[22]
484 Phil. 500 (2004).
[23]