G.R. No. 149227 - La Salette College vs. Pilotin

This is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by La Salette College, represented by its President, Fr. Romeo Gonzales, MS, and Jesus T. Bayaua, Dean of Student Services.
The petition seeks to set aside the Court of Appeals’ resolutions dated November 16, 2000, and June 22, 2001, which ultimately dismissed the appeal.

Respondent, a bona fide student of the petitioner college since the school year 1988-1989 with a course in Bachelor of Science in Commerce, was denied re-enrollment during the second semester enrollment period in 1993.
Despite repeated pleas by the respondent and his counsel, the college refused to permit his re-admission despite the issuance of an order on December 28, 1993, compelling his admission for the second semester.

On November 16, 1993, the respondent filed a complaint for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to compel the college to re-admit him.
When the college continued to refuse his re-admission, the respondent’s complaint was amended to concentrate on damages arising from the college’s defiant action.

After a favorable judgment in the trial court on November 17, 1998 in favor of the respondent, petitioners received the decision on November 26, 1998 and filed their Notice of Appeal on the same day.
The trial court approved the appeal on December 2, 1998, but petitioners later failed to pay the docket fees within the prescribed 15-day reglementary period.
Petitioners eventually paid the docket fees on July 8, 1999, which was nearly seven months past the mandated deadline.

The CA initially dismissed the appeal on November 29, 1999, due to non-payment of docket fees within the required period.
On motion, the CA reconsidered its earlier ruling in a Resolution dated March 14, 2000 reinstating the appeal on the ground that petitioners had paid the fees.
However, upon further motions and re-examination, the CA ultimately dismissed the appeal in the November 16, 2000 Resolution, finding that the docket fees had been paid one year and eleven days after the filing of the Notice of Appeal.
A subsequent Motion for Reconsideration filed by the petitioners was denied in the CA Resolution dated June 22, 2001.

Whether the Notice of Appeal filed by petitioners was seasonable.
Whether the payment of the appellate docket fees was made within the reglementary period as mandated by the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Whether the appellate court had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal if the docket fees were not paid on time.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal given that petitioners contended that the appeal was “seasonably filed” despite the delayed payment.

Whether any justifiable or excusable reason existed to warrant the relaxation of the strict rules on the payment of docket fees.
Whether the alleged “excusable negligence or mistake” by petitioners’ counsel would suffice to overcome the jurisdictional requirement of timely payment.