GR 167398; (August, 2011) (Digest)

G.R. No. 167398; August 9, 2011
AUGUSTUS GONZALES and spouses NESTOR VICTOR and MA. LOURDES RODRIGUEZ, Petitioners, vs. QUIRICO PE, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Nestor Rodriguez, a contractor, was awarded two DPWH projects. Respondent Quirico Pe agreed to supply cement. For the Kalibo project, Nestor Rodriguez availed of a DPWH pre-payment program requiring an official receipt for an advance. To facilitate this, petitioners delivered a Land Bank check (No. 6563066) signed by petitioners Augustus Gonzales and Ma. Lourdes Rodriguez but with the amount and date left blank. The check was to guarantee payment for 15,698 bags of cement (₱1,507,008.00) covered by an official receipt. A year later, respondent filled in the check for ₱2,062,000.00 with a date of June 30, 1999. The check was dishonored for insufficient funds. Petitioners filed an amended complaint for Declaration of Payment, Cancellation of Documents and Damages, alleging they had overpaid respondent and the filled check was unauthorized. Respondent counterclaimed for the balance of ₱2,062,000.00. The RTC ruled in favor of petitioners, declaring the obligation for the Kalibo project fully paid, the check null and void, and awarding damages to petitioners while dismissing the counterclaim. Respondent filed a notice of appeal. Petitioners moved to dismiss the appeal for non-payment of docket fees, presenting a certification from the Clerk of Court. The RTC dismissed the appeal and issued a writ of execution. Respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, which granted the petition, reversed the RTC order, and directed the RTC to assess appellate docket fees, allow respondent to pay, and give due course to the appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting respondent’s petition for certiorari and setting aside the RTC’s order dismissing the appeal for non-payment of docket fees.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The RTC lost jurisdiction over the case upon the perfection of respondent’s appeal by the timely filing of the notice of appeal. Perfection of an appeal by notice of appeal is deemed upon the filing of the notice of appeal in due time, after which the trial court loses jurisdiction over the case except for certain residual powers, which do not include the dismissal of the appeal for non-payment of fees. The duty to assess and collect appellate docket and other lawful fees lies with the Clerk of Court of the trial court, who must issue a notice of the fees due. The appellant must then pay these fees to the appellate court. Failure of the Clerk of Court to perform this duty cannot prejudice the appellant’s right to appeal. Since the RTC Clerk of Court did not issue a notice of the amount of appellate docket fees due, respondent’s failure to pay was not willful or negligent. The RTC therefore acted without jurisdiction in dismissing the perfected appeal. The CA correctly directed the RTC to assess the fees and allow respondent to pay them to the appellate court.