G.R. No. 139611; October 4, 2002
NOLI ALFONSO and ERLINDA FUNDIALAN, petitioners, vs. SPS. HENRY and LIWANAG ANDRES, respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from a complaint for accion publiciana with damages filed by the spouses Henry and Liwanag Andres (respondents) against Noli Alfonso and Erlinda Fundialan (petitioners) in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Mateo, Rizal, docketed as Civil Case No. 1182. The RTC decided in favor of the respondents. A copy of the decision was served upon the petitioners on July 15, 1997. On July 17, 1997, the petitioners, without the assistance of counsel, filed a Notice of Appeal but did not pay the corresponding docket and other lawful fees. The RTC granted the notice of appeal on July 21, 1997. On August 25, 1997, the respondents filed a motion to dismiss the appeal citing Section 1(c), Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. On October 9, 1997, the RTC denied the motion to dismiss and directed the petitioners to pay the required fees within five days, construing the newly effective 1997 Rules liberally. On the same date, October 9, 1997, the petitioners paid the appeal and legal research fees as evidenced by official receipts. The respondents elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, upon a report from the Judicial Records Division that the required docket fees were not paid, dismissed the appeal on March 17, 1999, pursuant to Section 1(c), Rule 50 in relation to Section 4, Rule 41. The CA denied the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration on August 9, 1999, noting that the payment was made beyond the period for perfecting an appeal. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE

1. Whether the payment of docket and other lawful fees within the period for perfecting an appeal is mandatory.
2. Whether the petitioners have shown sufficient reason for the relaxation of the rule on the payment of appellate docket and other lawful fees.

RULING

1. Yes, the payment of docket and other lawful fees within the prescribed period is mandatory for the perfection of an appeal. Failure to pay such fees affects the appellate court’s jurisdiction, and without such payment, the decision becomes final and executory. Appeal is a statutory privilege that must comply strictly with legal provisions.
2. Yes, the petitioners presented sufficient reasons for the relaxation of the rule under the exceptional circumstances of this case. The Supreme Court set aside the CA’s resolutions and reinstated the appeal, remanding the case to the CA for further proceedings. The reasons for relaxation include: (a) The notice of appeal was filed on July 17, 1997, only 16 days after the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure took effect on July 1, 1997. The recency of the rules excused the delay, as litigants and even judges needed time to familiarize themselves with the new requirements. (b) The petitioners were not assisted by counsel when they filed the notice of appeal, having more reason for leniency compared to cases where counsel was present. (c) The trial court itself acknowledged the novelty of the rules and applied them liberally by ordering the payment to cure the defect. (d) The petitioners demonstrated willingness to abide by the rules by immediately paying the required fees on the very day the RTC ordered the payment (October 9, 1997), despite the motion to dismiss proceedings that caused the delay. The Court distinguished this case from Lazaro vs. Court of Appeals, where payment was made six months late without sufficient explanation, and noted that the rules may be relaxed in exceptionally meritorious cases to serve the interest of justice.