GR 139882; (August, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 139882 ; August 16, 2000
ORIENTAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. SOLIDBANK CORPORATION, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Oriental Assurance Corporation issued a fire insurance policy covering properties of Wear Me Garments Manufacturing, Inc. (Wear Me). A renewal receipt contained a memorandum stating the policy was subject to a mortgagee clause in favor of respondent Solidbank Corporation. After a fire destroyed the insured properties, Solidbank, as holder of trust receipts over the goods, demanded payment from Oriental Assurance, which refused, contending the policy itself did not contain the mortgagee clause. Solidbank filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which granted summary judgment, holding Oriental Assurance jointly and severally liable with other defendants to pay Solidbank.
Oriental Assurance appealed the RTC Decision to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed the appeal for failure to pay the required docket fees pursuant to Section 1(c), Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Petitioner now assails the CA Resolutions, arguing that the 1997 Rules should not be applied retroactively to its appeal, which was perfected under the old rules that required payment of docket fees only upon notice from the appellate court.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in applying the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure retroactively to dismiss petitioner’s appeal for non-payment of docket fees.
RULING
The petition is devoid of merit. The retroactive application of procedural rules to pending cases is a well-settled doctrine. Procedural laws may be applied retroactively as they do not create or remove vested rights but merely prescribe the means and methods for enforcing existing rights. The 1997 Rules, which require payment of docket fees upon the filing of the notice of appeal (Section 4, Rule 41), govern the present case even though the notice of appeal was filed in 1995, as the appeal was still pending when the new rules took effect.
Petitioner’s argument that retroactive application impairs a vested right is untenable. The right to appeal is statutory, not a natural right, and its exercise must comply with the procedural requirements in force at the time. The old rule requiring payment upon notice from the CA clerk was a procedural directive, not a substantive right. Furthermore, the negligence of petitioner’s counsel in failing to ascertain and comply with the current procedural rules binds the client. The Court cannot countenance such negligence to justify a relaxation of the rules. Thus, the CA correctly dismissed the appeal for failure to pay the docket fees as mandated by the 1997 Rules.