G.R. No. 139882 - Oriental Assurance Corp. vs Solidbank Corp.

Petitioner: Oriental Assurance Corporation, an insurance company.
Respondent: Solidbank Corporation, holder of trust receipts.
Underlying transaction involved the issuance of multiple fire insurance policies by Oriental Assurance Corporation for Wear Me Garments Manufacturing, Inc. (Wear Me).
The fire insurance policies:

Policy No. F-92/22733-D, covering from March 20, 1991, to March 20, 1992, and renewed for another year until March 20, 1993.
Policy No. F-93-40690-D, covering from March 20, 1993, to March 20, 1994.

A memorandum on the renewal receipt indicated that the policy was “made further subject to MORTGAGEE CLAUSE in favor of SOLIDBANK CORPORATION.”

A major fire occurred on July 12, 1993, at Wear Me’s factory, destroying a significant part of the insured properties.
Wear Me filed a Notice of Loss for the damaged properties, but the claims were subsequently denied.
Solidbank, as holder of trust receipts, sought payment from Oriental Assurance Corporation based on the insurance policies.
Petitioner refused to pay, referring to the absence of a mortgagee clause in Policy No. F-92/22733-D.

Solidbank instituted Civil Case No. 94-70505 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila against:

Oriental Assurance Corporation and Wear Me.
Several individuals including Leonila Cui, Angelita Amparo Go, and Arnold A. Go, among others.

The RTC rendered a decision in favor of Solidbank (with detailed findings on the liabilities of the various defendants regarding the loan, trust receipts, and insurance coverage issues).
Post RTC Decision:

Respondent filed a Motion for Execution pending appeal.
Oriental Assurance Corporation filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied via an Omnibus Order.
Oriental Assurance Corporation subsequently appealed the RTC decision to the Court of Appeals (CA).

The appeal was affected by the retroactive application of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Notably, Section 1(c) of Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules mandates the payment of docket fees upon filing the notice of appeal.
The CA dismissed the appeal for failure to pay the required docket fees.
Oriental Assurance Corporation’s subsequent Motion for Reconsideration at the CA was also denied, prompting the present Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.

Petitioner’s counsel failed to take notice, and the required notice for payment of the docket fees under the old Rules was never properly received.
The Court of Appeals, however, applied the 1997 Rules with retroactive effect, holding that the appeal should be dismissed for non-payment.
Case reliance on Arambulo v. CA highlighted that even if proper notice under the old Rules might have been lacking, counsel’s duty to check the status of the appeal was paramount.
The prolonged pendency of the appeal (over three years) further underscored negligence on the part of petitioner’s counsel.

Whether the retroactive application of Section 1(c) of Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure in requiring payment of the docket and other lawful fees applies to pending appeals.
Whether applying the new deadline for the payment of docket fees impairs the petitioner’s vested rights under the old Rules.

Whether the petitioners’ counsel neglected their duty to ascertain or check on the status of the pending appeal.
Whether the failure to receive the notice, as mandated under the old Rules, affects the proper exercise of their duty under the new procedural regime.

Whether the CA was correct in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of non-payment of docket fees, irrespective of merits on the substantive issues of the case.