G.R. No. 237591 . November 10, 2021.
Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority, Petitioner, vs. Subic Bay Marine Exploratorium, Inc., Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA), created under R.A. No. 7227 to develop the Subic Bay Freeport Zone (SBFZ), imposed a Common User Service Area (CUSA) Fee on its locators/lessees to recoup expenses for municipal services. The policy was approved via Board Resolutions, public hearings were conducted, and notices were sent. Respondent Subic Bay Marine Exploratorium, Inc. (SBMEI), an SBMA lessee, filed a complaint seeking to declare the CUSA fee null and void. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of SBMEI, annulling the resolutions and enjoining SBMA from collecting the fee from SBMEI. SBMA’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC in an Order dated August 26, 2015. A court personnel handed this Order to Atty. Anna Reyes of the SBMA Legal Department on September 2, 2015. The Order was stamped received on September 3, 2015, and SBMA filed its Notice of Appeal on September 18, 2015. The RTC denied the notice for being filed one day late, computing the 15-day appeal period from September 2, 2015. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s denial, finding no grave abuse of discretion. SBMA filed the instant petition, seeking liberality to allow its appeal.

ISSUE

Whether or not SBMA’s appeal may be given due course despite being filed one day late.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and allowed the appeal. The Court emphasized that its primary duty is to render justice, and appeals may be given due course despite procedural lapses when substantial justice and paramount public interest demand. The Court found that SBMA’s one-day delay in filing the notice of appeal was due to an honest mistake—a newly hired clerk stamped the Order as received on September 3, 2015, and the handling lawyer relied on this date for computing the appeal period. The Court noted that SBMA, as a government corporation with a vital public mandate to develop the SBFZ, stands to suffer grave injustice if its appeal on the substantive issue of its authority to impose the CUSA fee is not heard. The collection of the fee relates to SBMA’s ability to fund essential municipal services within the SBFZ, a matter of paramount public interest. The Court ruled that the delay was not gross or inexcusable and that the higher interest of justice warranted the relaxation of procedural rules. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for resolution of the substantive appeal on the merits.