A.C. No. 2252-CFI - Ignacio vs. Valenzuela

The case involves plaintiffs/appellants BUENAVENTURA SALAVERIA, ANACLETO SALAVERIA, and VICTORIA DE LOS REYES versus defendants/appellants RAMON ALBINDO, MELECIO ALBINDO, and SEBASTIANA ALBINDO.
Both parties appealed from a judgment rendered by the Court of First Instance of Tayabas.

The plaintiffs’ counsel requested reconsideration of the court’s resolution dismissing the appeal, arguing a departure from former practices regarding fee payment.
The court discovered that both the plaintiffs and the defendants failed to pay the filing fees within the time fixed by the rules of the Supreme Court, leading to the dismissal of both appeals due to abandonment.

Section 787 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows dismissal of an appeal or bill of exceptions for failure to pay required fees within a reasonable time and after proper notice.
Historically, records might have been allowed to remain in the court’s archives for extended periods despite non-payment; this practice was modified to curtail delays.
The Rules of the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands, effective January 1, 1919, were enacted to expedite justice by discouraging dilatory tactics and imposing strict time limits on fee payment.

The new rules required that the appellant must pay the docketing fee within ten days after receiving notice of transmission of the record.
Failure to pay within the prescribed period results in the appeal being automatically deemed abandoned and dismissed without need for an additional motion.
The dismissal rule applies equally to both plaintiffs and defendants, ensuring adherence to the procedural requirements set forth in section 14(b) of the new rules.

Whether dismissing the appeals due to failure to timely pay the required filing fees is legally justified under section 787 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the new Supreme Court rules.
Whether the new rule, which stipulates a ten-day deadline for fee payment, should be strictly enforced against both parties.

Whether it is appropriate to dismiss the appeals of both parties since both the plaintiffs and defendants failed to meet the fee requirements.
Whether granting the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration, based on a supposed deviation from former practice, would undermine the uniform enforcement of the new rules.

Whether the adoption of stricter time limits for fee payment, aimed at expediting justice, outweighs historical practices where records were allowed to remain dormant for several months.