GR 138031; (May, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 138031; May 27, 2004
ANTONIO NAVARRO and GRAHMMS, INC., petitioners, vs. METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, and THE HON. ZEUS C. ABROGAR (Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 150), respondents.
FACTS
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (MBTC) filed a petition for judicial foreclosure of a real estate mortgage against Antonio Navarro and Grahmms, Inc. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati granted the petition. The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. On the last day of the reglementary period for appeal, April 14, 1998, the petitioners filed a Notice of Appeal. However, they failed to pay the requisite appellate docket fees simultaneously with the filing of the notice.
MBTC moved to deny the appeal due to this failure. The RTC, in an Order dated May 27, 1998, acknowledged that the notice was timely filed but denied the appeal for non-payment of docket fees and issued a writ of execution. The petitioners later attempted to pay the fees on June 9, 1998, but the court’s receiving clerk refused acceptance, citing the court’s May 27 Order which had already resolved the matter.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s denial of the petitioners’ appeal for failure to pay the appellate docket fees within the reglementary period.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The ruling is grounded on the mandatory and jurisdictional nature of the payment of appellate docket fees. Under Section 4, Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the appellant must pay the full amount of the docket and other lawful fees within the period for taking an appeal. The Court emphasized that the payment of the prescribed docket fee is not a mere technicality but a jurisdictional requirement. The perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period and in the manner prescribed by law is mandatory, and failure to comply renders the judgment final and executory.
The petitioners’ excuse—that their counsel’s secretary migrated abroad, disrupting office operations—was deemed an unacceptable flimsy justification. The negligence of a counsel’s staff is binding upon the client. The law office has the duty to implement a proper system for handling pleadings and deadlines. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the RTC’s denial of the appeal, as the rules were applied strictly and correctly. The subsequent attempt to pay the fees almost two months after the appeal period had lapsed was rightly rejected, as the right to appeal had already been lost.