GR 138758; (July, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 138758; July 6, 2000
William P. Chan, petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals and Sps. Mario Geronimo and Gregoria Geronimo, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner William P. Chan, a financial consultant, entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with respondent spouses Mario and Gregoria Geronimo on August 16, 1995. Under the agreement, Chan would assist the spouses in securing a loan from Banco Filipino in exchange for a success fee equivalent to ten percent of the approved loan amount. Chan performed his obligations, and the bank granted the spouses a loan of P20,600,000.00. However, the respondents refused to pay Chan his stipulated fee of P2,060,000.00 despite repeated demands.
Chan filed a collection case before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, which ruled in his favor. The respondents filed a Notice of Appeal but failed to pay the corresponding appellate docket fees. Chan filed a manifestation highlighting this deficiency. Consequently, the RTC issued an order denying the appeal for non-compliance with the payment requirement under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The respondents’ motion for reconsideration was also denied.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in giving due course to the respondents’ appeal despite their failure to pay the appellate docket fees to the clerk of court of the court a quo within the reglementary period for appeal.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulling the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court emphasized that the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which took effect on July 1, 1997, had superseded the old Revised Rules of Court. Under the prevailing rules, specifically Section 4, Rule 41, the payment of the full amount of the appellate court docket and other lawful fees to the clerk of court of the trial court that rendered the appealed judgment is mandatory and must be made within the same 15-day period for filing a notice of appeal.
The Court of Appeals erroneously applied the obsolete provision of the Revised Rules of Court, which allowed an appellant the option to pay the docket fee either to the clerk of the trial court or to the appellate court. The 1997 Rules removed this option, making payment to the trial court’s clerk a compulsory requirement for perfecting an appeal. Since the respondents filed their notice of appeal without paying the requisite fees to the RTC clerk within the reglementary period, their appeal was not perfected. The RTC correctly denied their appeal. The case was remanded to the trial court for execution of its final judgment in favor of Chan.