GR L 56315; (November, 1986) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-56315 November 25, 1986
CLEMENTE FONTANAR, DIOSDADO PELAYO, ANTONIO PELAYO, JR., and NORMA S. PELAYO, petitioners, vs. RUBEN BONSUBRE, LEONARDO BONSUBRE, Hon. BERNARDO Ll. SALAS, Presiding Judge, CFI of Cebu, Branch VIII, Hon. GALICANO ARRIESGADO, Presiding Judge, Municipal Circuit Court of Bogo-San Remegio, Cebu, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners were found jointly and severally liable for damages by the Municipal Circuit Court. They timely filed a notice of appeal and an appeal bond. However, they failed to pay the appellate court docket fee within the fifteen-day reglementary period. Private respondents moved to dismiss the appeal on this ground. Petitioners opposed, explaining they awaited notice from the Clerk of Court on the exact fee amount. The Municipal Circuit Court dismissed the appeal for failure to perfect it.
Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of First Instance (CFI), challenging the dismissal as a grave abuse of discretion. The CFI initially dismissed their petition for failure to file a memorandum but later reinstated it. Ultimately, the CFI dismissed the certiorari petition, ruling that payment of the appellate docket fee is mandatory and jurisdictional for perfecting an appeal from an inferior court, distinguishing it from appeals from the CFI to the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Does the appellant’s failure to pay the appellate court docket fee within the fifteen-day reglementary period result in the automatic dismissal of the appeal?
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the CFI’s decision and reinstated the appeal. The Court held that the failure to pay the appellate docket fee within the reglementary period does not automatically result in the dismissal of the appeal, nor does it affect the court’s jurisdiction. Citing NAWASA vs. Secretary of Public Works, the Court ruled that such dismissal is discretionary, not mandatory. This principle applies by analogy to the CFI exercising appellate jurisdiction. The power to dismiss for non-payment is directory and should be exercised with sound discretion, considering justice and fair play. The Court emphasized that procedural rules are tools to facilitate justice, not to hinder it. Since petitioners timely filed their notice of appeal and appeal bond, and their failure to pay the fee was due to awaiting official notice, the dismissal was unduly harsh. The appeal should be given due course upon payment of the required fee.