Republic
of the
Supreme
Court
SECOND DIVISION
|
PACIFIC UNION INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, - versus - CONCEPTS & SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT, INCORPORATED and COURT OF APPEALS (FIFTEENTH DIVISION), Respondents. |
G.R. No. 183528 Present: CARPIO, J.,
Chairperson, NACHURA, PERALTA, ABAD, and MENDOZA, JJ. Promulgated: February
23, 2011 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
NACHURA, J.:
This petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court seeks the annulment of the Court of Appeals (CA) Resolution dated May 7,
2008,[1]
dismissing petitioner’s appeal for failure to pay the docket fees. Likewise
assailed is CA Resolution dated June 12, 2008,[2]
denying the motion for reconsideration.
A brief factual background of the
case:[3]
Concepts & Systems Development,
Inc. (private respondent) and a certain Pedro Perez (Perez) entered into an
Amended Construction Agreement on February 11, 1997, whereby the latter
undertook to construct, build, and complete the civil, architectural, and
plumbing works of the former’s condominium project. The project was divided
into three (3) stages and, in consideration of Perez’s undertaking, respondent
paid him down payments in the following amounts:
STAGE 1 - P5,690,292.14
STAGE 2 - P4,985,062.92
STAGE 3 - P6,135,974.12
To secure these amounts in case Perez
fails to make good his part of the contract, respondent required him to post,
as he did post, surety bonds.
Twenty percent (20%) of the payments
for Stages 1 and 2 were secured by a surety bond issued by Philippine Phoenix
Surety and Insurance Inc. (Phoenix), while the payment for Stage 3 was secured
in full by Surety Bond No. 00054 G (16) 015342 issued by herein petitioner
Pacific Union Insurance Company (petitioner) on March 19, 1997.
On even date, petitioner also issued
Performance Bond No. 00157 G (13) 015341 for the same amount of P6,135,974.12
to secure the full and faithful
performance of Perez’s undertaking under the Amended Construction Agreement.
Perez failed to complete his work;
thus, on July 15, 1998, private respondent filed a civil action for Breach of Contract and Damages with
Preliminary Attachment against petitioner,
In its Answer with Counterclaims and Cross-claims,[4]
petitioner averred that it issued the surety bonds upon the understanding that
the construction for stage 3 of the condominium project was just being started
when the Amended Construction Agreement was executed in February 1997, but at the
time that the applications for the bonds were filed in the middle part of March
1997, Perez was already in delay. This essential fact was, however,
fraudulently concealed and/or withheld by Perez. The bonds issued on March 19,
1997 were intended to secure the performance of the obligor’s undertaking as
called for in the contract with the obligee, therefore, prospective in
character. The bonds were not issued to secure the payment of whatever
liabilities the obligor had already incurred or was already subject to on
account of its failure to perform its
undertaking under the contract.
On February 17, 2007, the RTC
rendered a decision[5] in favor
of private respondent.[6]
Petitioner was ordered to pay P12,271,948.24 with a right to claim
reimbursement from Perez.
When its motion for reconsideration[7]
was denied,[8]
petitioner appealed to the CA. On July 9, 2007, petitioner filed its notice of
appeal[9] with
the RTC. On July 10, 2007, the RTC issued an Order granting the notice of
appeal upon the finding that the same was filed and the appeal docket fee
therefor was paid within the reglementary period allowed by law.[10]
In its first assailed resolution, the
CA dismissed petitioner’s appeal for failure to pay the docket and other legal
fees per the April 23, 2008 report of its Judicial Records Division (JRD).[11]
Petitioner moved for reconsideration,[12]
averring that it failed to pay the appellate docket fees due to serious
financial reverses. To convince the CA to grant the motion, petitioner
expressed its willingness to pay the docket fees, albeit belatedly. The motion
was denied;[13] hence,
the instant petition arguing that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in
dismissing petitioner’s appeal.[14]
Petitioner contends that the
dismissal of its appeal has no legal basis because, as shown in the July 10,
2007 RTC Order, petitioner paid the appellate court docket fees within the
reglementary period. Petitioner explains that it overlooked the RTC Order
during the preparation of the motion for reconsideration of the CA Resolution,
and that it only came upon the RTC Order when the present petition was being
written. Petitioner also pleads for a liberal application of the rules on
perfection of appeal on the ground that it has a meritorious defense against
the claim of respondent.
The petition is meritorious.
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.
Thus, one who seeks to avail of the right to appeal must comply with the
requirements of the Rules. Failure to do
so inevitably leads to the loss of the right to appeal.[15]
Nonetheless, the
emerging trend in our jurisprudence is to afford every party-litigant the
amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause free
from the constraints of technicalities. While it is desirable that the Rules of
Court be faithfully and even meticulously observed, courts should not be so
strict about procedural lapses that do not really impair the administration of
justice.[16] This is based, no less, on the Rules of Court
which itself calls for a liberal construction of its provisions, with the
objective of securing for the parties a just, speedy, and inexpensive
disposition of every action and proceeding.[17]
The dismissal
of petitioner’s appeal was based on the absence of the proof of payment of
docket fees from the records transmitted by the RTC clerk of court.[18] This procedural lapse is too inconsequential
to prejudice the administration of justice, considering that the required fees
were actually paid, as shown in the July 10, 2007 RTC Order granting the notice
of appeal which explicitly declares that the “appeal docket fee therefor was
paid within the reglementary period allowed by law.” That petitioner’s counsel mistakenly thought
that no payment was made, and thus prayed, in her motion for reconsideration,
for the chance to pay the fees belatedly, is of no moment. The fact is, there was actual payment.
The courts’ discretionary power in
dismissing an appeal for failure to comply with the Rules should be used in the
exercise of sound judgment in accordance with the tenets of justice and fair
play with a great deal of circumspection, considering all attendant
circumstances, and must be exercised wisely and ever prudently, never
capriciously, with a view to substantial justice.[19]
Here, the CA gravely abused its discretion
in disregarding the RTC Order and in giving premium to a technical requirement which
is too trifling to prevail over petitioner’s right to an opportunity to be
heard. The RTC Order convincingly established that petitioner
paid the appellate
court
docket fees; the proof of payment
missing from the transmitted records merely detailed the breakdown of the
payment and, hence, would be too trivial as to justify the CA’s refusal to
exercise jurisdiction over the appeal.
We have, in numerous instances,
relaxed the Rules when an appellant altogether fails to pay the docket fees;
with greater reason should a liberal stance be taken in this case considering
that the appellate docket fees were actually paid and the only detail lacking
is a specific breakdown of the fees settled.
Moreover,
the duty of transmitting the proof of payment, together with the original
records, is lodged with the RTC clerk of court.[20] Certainly, it would be unjust to chastise an
appellant for an error not of his doing by dismissing his appeal.
This
notwithstanding, it is still imperative for petitioner to submit proof of
payment of docket fees - through a copy of the official receipt issued by the
clerk of the RTC or a certification to that effect – to enable the CA to assess
whether the docket fees paid were the full and correct amounts required.
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The Court of Appeals is DIRECTED to give due course to the appeal of Pacific Union
Insurance Company upon its submission of
a copy of the official receipt evidencing its payment of appellate court
docket fees or a certification from the RTC clerk of court confirming such
payment and specifying the details thereof.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate
Justice |
ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate
Justice |
JOSE CATRAL
Associate
Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
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
Chairperson,
Second Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
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
[1] Rollo, p. 87.
[2]
[3] As alleged in the complaint filed
by respondent before the
[4]
[5]
[6] The
dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, judgment is rendered in favor of
plaintiff as follows:
1. Ordering defendant Perez to pay plaintiff the total
amount of P28,317,723.00 as of June 30, 1997, exclusive of penalties and
other damages incurred by plaintiff after said date as a result of delays in
the completion of the Projects;
2. Ordering defendant Phoenix and Pacific to pay
plaintiff the total amount of P5,317,040.32 for defendant Phoenix and P12,271,948.24
for defendant Pacific;
3. Ordering defendants, jointly and solidarily, to pay
plaintiff the amount of P200,000.00 as and for attorney’s fees; and
4. On the cross-claims of defendants Pacific and
SO ORDERED. (
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] Supra
note 1.
“Considering:
April 23, 2008 – JRD updated report;
“No payment of docketing fee for defendant Pacific
Union Insurance Company P3,030 + P1,000.00 Mediation fee. Notice
of Appeal filed July 9, 2007.
the Court RESOLVED:
In the light of the JRD report, the appeal of
defendant-appellant Pacific Union Insurance Co. is DISMISSED for failure to pay
the requisite docketing and other legal fees [Sec 1[c], Rule 50 of the 1995
Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended].”
[12]
[13] Supra note 2.
[14] I. PUBLIC RESPONDENT HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS OF THE FIFTEENTH DIVISION ACTED WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION
AND COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND PALPABLE MISTAKE IN DISMISSING THE
PETITIONER’S APPEAL TO THE COURT’S (sic) A QUO’S DECISION DATED FEBRUARY 17,
2007 FOR FAILURE TO PAY THE REQUISITE DOCKET AND OTHER LEGAL FEES[;]
II. PUBLIC
RESPONDENT HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE FIFTEENTH DIVISION ACTED WITHOUT
OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION AND COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND
PALPABLE MISTAKE IN DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND ARBITRARILY
DISREGARDED THE MOTION;
III. PETITIONER HAS A VALID AND STRONG DEFENSE IN
THE MAIN COMPLAINT. (
[15] Anadon v. Herrera, G.R. No. 159153, July
9, 2007, 527 SCRA 90, 95, citing Neypes v. Court of Appeals, 506 Phil.
613, 621 (2005).
[16] Anadon v. Herrera, supra, at 96-97, citing Cando v. Olazo, G.R. No. 160741, March 22, 2007, 518 SCRA 741, 749.
[17] Edillo v. Dulpina, G.R. No. 188360, January 21, 2010, 610 SCRA 590, 598; 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Rule 1, Sec. 6.
[18] Under
Rule IV, Section 4 of the 2002 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals,* the JRD
is tasked to process civil cases under ordinary appeal by initially checking
the proof of payment of docket fees in the records. The specific provision
reads:
“Section 4. Processing
of Ordinary Appeals –
(a) In Civil Cases
1.
Upon receipt of the original, whether by personal or [sic] delivery, or by
mail, the Civil Cases Section of the Judicial Records Division shall
immediately;
(1.1)
Check proof of payment of the full amount of the appellate court docket and
other lawful fees and deposits for costs to the clerk of court of the court
which rendered the appealed judgment or order.”
*The prevailing internal rules are the 2010 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals but the facts of the petition at bar occurred during the effectivity of the 2002 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals.
[19] See Andrea Camposagrado v. Pablo Camposagrado, 506 Phil. 583, 589 (2005).
[20] RULES
OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Rule 41, SEC.12. Transmittal.
– The clerk of the trial court shall
transmit to the appellate court the
original record or the approved record on appeal within thirty (30) days
from the perfection of the appeal, together
with the proof of payment of
the appellate court docket and other lawful fees, a certified true copy
of the minutes of the proceedings, the order of approval, the certificate of
correctness, the original documentary evidence referred to therein, and the
original and three (3) copies of the transcripts. Copies of the transcripts and
certified true copies of the documentary evidence shall remain in the lower
court for the examination of the parties. (Emphasis supplied.)