GR 139596; (January, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 139596 ; January 24, 2006
CHARLES CU-UNJIENG, Petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Charles Cu-Unjieng offered to purchase an agricultural land owned by respondent Union Bank of the Philippines (UBP) for P2,078,305.50, tendering a check as earnest money. UBP acknowledged receipt but later rejected the offer, citing a legal opinion that the sale of the CARP-covered land without DAR approval would be void, and offered to refund the earnest money. Cu-Unjieng filed a complaint for specific performance and damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), alleging a perfected contract of sale. The RTC dismissed the complaint, finding no perfected contract, and ordered UBP to refund the earnest money with interest.
Cu-Unjieng filed a notice of appeal. However, he failed to pay the corresponding appellate docket fees within the reglementary period. The fees were paid only four months after the lapse of the period for appeal. Consequently, the Court of Appeals (CA) issued a resolution dismissing the appeal for non-payment of the requisite fees and later denied his motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the appeal for failure to pay the appellate docket fees on time.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the appeal. The payment of appellate docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory and jurisdictional. The reglementary period for perfecting an appeal, which includes the payment of fees, is strictly construed. Failure to comply results in the appellate court not acquiring jurisdiction over the appeal, and the decision of the lower court becomes final and executory.
In this case, the petitioner’s payment was made four months after the expiration of the appeal period. This constitutes a clear violation of procedural rules. The Supreme Court emphasized that rules of procedure are not to be belittled, and their non-observance cannot be excused by a mere invocation of substantial justice. The trial court’s decision had thus attained finality. The petition was denied, and the CA resolutions were affirmed.