Case Digest (G.R. No. 138031)
Facts:
Antonio Navarro and Grahmms, Inc. v. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company, G.R. No. 138031, May 27, 2004, Supreme Court Second Division, Callejo, Sr., J., writing for the Court. This is a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari from the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA‑G.R. SP No. 48131.On November 3, 1994, Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (MBTC) filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City a petition for judicial foreclosure against the petitioners; the case was docketed as Civil Case No. 94‑2913 and raffled to RTC Branch 150. The RTC rendered judgment in favor of MBTC on January 16, 1998, ordering foreclosure and sale to apply proceeds to a P3,500,000 loan plus interest and penalties, awarding 10% attorneys’ fees. The petitioners received the decision on February 10, 1998, and filed a motion for reconsideration on February 18, 1998, which the RTC denied in an order dated March 25, 1998 (copy received April 7, 1998).
On April 14, 1998—the last day of the reglementary period—the petitioners filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals but did not pay the required appellate docket and other lawful fees. MBTC moved to deny due course the notice of appeal on April 21, 1998, asserting untimeliness; the RTC ruled the notice was timely but, in an Order dated May 27, 1998, denied the appeal for failure to pay docket fees and ordered issuance of a writ of execution, which the RTC issued on June 2, 1998. The petitioners’ counsel later wrote that on June 9, 1998 he attempted to pay the fees but was refused by the receiving clerk; the RTC explained its policy that payments should be made at the Office of the Clerk of Court and noted its incidents were already resolved.
On June 29, 1998 the petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA‑G.R. SP No. 48131) assailing the RTC’s May 27, 1998 Order as a grave abuse of discretion. For the first time before the CA, petitioners’ counsel explained the nonpayment by alleging his lone secretary migrated abroad and failed to pay the fees. The Court of Appeals promulgated its Decision on September 30, 1998 dismissing the petitioners’ certiorari relief; the CA denied the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated March 29, 1999.
Thereafter the petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court by a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, arguing amo...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the appeal to the Court of Appeals perfected despite the petitioners’ failure to pay the appellate docket and other lawful fees within the reglementary period, and did the filing of the notice of appeal divest the RTC of jurisdiction?
- Did the Court of Appeals and the RTC act with grave abuse of discretion in denying the appeal for nonpayment and in issuing a writ of execution?
- Did the petitioners establish a justifiable reason (the migration of counsel’s secretary) to warrant relaxation of the mandatory requirement to pay appellate docket a...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)