G.R. No. 134473; March 30, 2006
Juan De Dios Carlos, Petitioner, vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals and Spouses Pedro R. Balbanero and Jovita Amiths Balbanero, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Juan De Dios Carlos filed Civil Case No. 94-1964 for partition, recovery of property, and reconveyance with damages against his brother’s widow, Felicidad Carlos, and later impleaded respondent spouses Pedro and Jovita Balbanero. The property in question, covered by TCT No. 139061 originally in the name of petitioner’s father Felix Carlos, was transferred to petitioner’s brother Teofilo Carlos upon their father’s death to avoid taxes, with an understanding that the shares of other heirs would be respected. Before partition, Teofilo died. Petitioner later discovered Teofilo had entered into a sales agreement with the respondent spouses over the property, which was the subject of prior litigation where the Court of Appeals ordered Teofilo’s estate to execute a deed of sale. The trial court ruled in favor of petitioner, declaring an implied trust over the property and awarding petitioner a one-half undivided share, moral damages, and attorney’s fees. Respondents filed a timely notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 57625, and paid P400.00 in appellate docket fees as assessed by the RTC clerk of court. Petitioner moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the payment was P20.00 short of the required fee. The Court of Appeals, instead of dismissing, directed respondents to remit the balance, which they promptly did via postal money order. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss the appeal despite respondents’ initial failure to pay the full appellate court docket and other lawful fees.
RULING
No, the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s resolution. While payment of docket fees within the prescribed period is jurisdictional for perfecting an appeal, the dismissal of an appeal for failure to pay such fees is discretionary, not mandatory, on the part of the appellate court. This discretion must be exercised wisely, considering justice and fair play, and not capriciously. In this case, the deficiency was due to an error in computation by the RTC clerk of court, not by respondents. Respondents demonstrated good faith by promptly paying the P20.00 deficiency when directed by the CA. The Court emphasized that technicalities should not undermine the right to appeal or deprive a party-litigant of the opportunity for a just disposition of their cause. Therefore, the petition was denied.