Case Summary (G.R. No. 163344)
Factual Background
Union Bank of the Philippines owned a 218,769-square-meter parcel of agricultural land in Barangay Sta. Maria, San Miguel, Bulacan, registered under TCT No. TC-1062. In January 1994 the bank posted a list of acquired realty assets for sale and offered the parcel for P2,200,000.00. On April 11, 1994, petitioner offered to purchase the land for P2,078,305.50, proposing fifty percent down and the balance in equal monthly installments over two years, and tendered PCIB Check No. 565827 for P103,915.27 as earnest money. The bank acknowledged receipt on April 11, 1994. Subsequent correspondence in August and December 1994 advised petitioner that the bank awaited legal opinion and ultimately rejected the offer because the land was deemed CARPable and could not be sold without Department of Agrarian Reform approval, and the bank advised petitioner to claim the refund of his earnest money.
Procedural Origin and Pleadings
Petitioner filed a complaint for Specific Performance and Damages on February 6, 1997, impleading the Register of Deeds of Bulacan as co-defendant and docketed as Civil Case No. 80-M-97, Branch 9. The complaint alleged a perfected contract of sale based on the April 11, 1994 letter, prayed for an order directing the bank to accept payments and execute a Deed of Absolute Sale upon full payment of P2,078,305.50, and sought moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, reimbursement of costs, and other equitable reliefs.
Trial Court Disposition
The Regional Trial Court rendered judgment on September 1, 1998, finding that no perfected contract of sale transpired and dismissing the complaint for want of sufficient cause of action. The court ordered Union Bank of the Philippines to reimburse petitioner the P103,915.27 representing the face value of the tendered check, with interest at prevailing savings deposit rates from April 11, 1994 until payment. The court denied the defendant’s counterclaim for damages and attorney’s fees for lack of proof. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
Appeal to the Court of Appeals and Resolutions
Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal and the trial court ordered the elevation of the records to the Court of Appeals, where the appeal was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 8177-B-UDK. By Resolution dated May 10, 1999, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for petitioner’s failure to pay the appellate court docket and other lawful fees, citing Sec. 4, Rule 41 and Sec. 1(c), Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner moved for reconsideration and attached his appellant’s brief. By Resolution dated July 30, 1999, the CA denied the motion for reconsideration and ordered the attached brief expunged, reiterating that the notice of appeal was not accompanied by full and correct payment of appellate fees and citing the doctrine that perfection of appeal requires timely payment of docket fees.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
Petitioner sought review by petition for certiorari, urging the Supreme Court to relax procedural rules and to reverse the CA resolutions. He contended that his failure to pay appeal docket fees on time was a nonjurisdictional lapse and assigned blame to the RTC clerk of court for erroneous computation of docket fees. Petitioner invoked equitable considerations and the attainment of substantial justice to excuse the delay.
Parties’ Contentions as Recited by the Court
Petitioner argued for indulgent application of the rules and urged that the CA should have overlooked the late payment in order to reach the merits. Union Bank of the Philippines opposed the motion for reconsideration before the CA and maintained that the appeal was not perfected because of nonpayment of fees within the reglementary period. The CA grounded its dismissal on settled precedent emphasizing the mandatory nature of fee payment for perfection of appeals.
Legal Basis and Reasoning of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court reiterated that the right to appeal is statutory and that compliance with rules governing perfection is mandatory. It cited Rule 41, Sec. 4, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires payment of appellate court docket and other lawful fees within the period for taking an appeal, and the well-settled rule that such payment is both mandatory and jurisdictional. The Court surveyed controlling authorities, including La Salette College v. Victor Pilotin, Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority v. Mangubat, and other decisions, to explain the narrow circumstances in which appellate courts may exercise discretion to admit late payment. The Court distinguished precedents in which fees were paid shortly after filing the notice of ap
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 163344)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- CHARLES CU-UNJIENG filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court seeking reversal of two Court of Appeals resolutions dismissing his appeal and expunging his brief.
- HON. COURT OF APPEALS rendered the assailed Resolutions in CA-G.R. CV No. 8177-B-UDK which dismissed the appeal for nonpayment of appellate docket and other lawful fees and denied the motion for reconsideration.
- Union Bank of the Philippines was the principal appellee in the underlying civil action for specific performance and damages.
- The petition challenged the CA Resolutions dated May 10, 1999 and July 30, 1999 that resulted in the RTC decision becoming final and executory.
Key Factual Allegations
- Union Bank of the Philippines owned a 218,769-square-meter parcel of agricultural land in Barangay Sta. Maria, San Miguel, Bulacan registered under TCT No. TC-1062.
- The bank posted a three-page list of acquired realty assets in January 1994 offering the subject parcel for sale at P2,200,000.
- Petitioner sent a letter dated April 11, 1994 offering to buy the property for P2,078,305.50 with fifty percent as down payment and the balance payable in equal monthly installments over two years.
- Petitioner tendered PCIB Check No. 565827 for P103,915.27 as purported earnest money and the bank acknowledged receipt by Union Bank Receipt No. 495081 dated April 11, 1994.
- The bank informed petitioner on August 31, 1994 that it awaited the opinion of its legal division on the sale of CARPable agricultural assets.
- On December 19, 1994 the bank rejected petitioner's offer citing that sales of lands covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law without prior DAR approval are null and void.
- Petitioner demanded specific performance, and the bank reiterated rejection by letter dated July 19, 1995 invoking the procedures under Republic Act (RA) No. 6657.
Trial Court Proceedings
- Petitioner filed a complaint for Specific Performance and Damages on February 6, 1997 in the Regional Trial Court at Malolos, Bulacan, docketed as Civil Case No. 80-M-97, Branch 9.
- The RTC, by decision dated September 1, 1998, found that no perfected contract of sale transpired and dismissed the complaint for lack of sufficient cause of action.
- The RTC ordered Union Bank of the Philippines to reimburse petitioner the amount of P103,915.27 with interest at prevailing savings deposit rates from April 11, 1994 until paid in full.
- The RTC denied costs and subsequently denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration, whereupon petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal.
Court of Appeals Resolutions
- The CA, in a Resolution dated May 10, 1999, dismissed petitioner's appeal for failure to pay the required docket and other lawful fees citing Sec. 4, Rule 41, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and Sec. 1(c), Rule 50.
- Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration attaching his appellant's brief, and the CA, in a Resolution dated July 30, 1999, denied the motion and ordered the attached brief expunged for nonpayment of the full and correct appellate fees.
- The CA relied on precedents including Pedrosa vs. Hill and Rodillas vs. Commission on Elections to stress that payment of full appellate docket fees is indispensable to perfection of an appeal.
- The CA applied the principle that failure to pay appellate fees within the reglementary period deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
Issues Presented
- Whether the