GR 140321; (August, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 140321; August 24, 2000
BARANGAY 24 OF LEGAZPI CITY represented by BGY. CHAIRMAN RICARDO ABUNDA, petitioner, vs. ELIAS IMPERIAL, respondent.
FACTS
This case originated from a forcible entry complaint filed by respondent Elias Imperial against Barangay 24 before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC). The MTC ruled in favor of Imperial, ordering the barangay to vacate the subject lot. After the MTC issued a writ of execution and an order of demolition, the barangay, now represented by a new chairman, filed an action for annulment of judgment with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), alleging fraud. The RTC dismissed this annulment case.
Petitioner barangay then filed a special civil action for certiorari and mandamus with the Court of Appeals (CA) to challenge the RTC’s dismissal. The CA issued a resolution requiring petitioner to pay an additional docket fee of P665.00 within five days from notice, warning that failure to do so would result in the dismissal of the petition. Counsel for the petitioner received this notice but failed to ensure the payment was made.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the special civil action for certiorari due to the petitioner’s failure to pay the prescribed docket fees within the reglementary period.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition. The payment of the full docket fee within the prescribed period is a mandatory and jurisdictional requirement. The court acquires jurisdiction over the subject matter only upon payment of the correct fees. In this case, the appellate court explicitly notified petitioner of the deficiency and gave a five-day period for compliance, with a clear warning of dismissal.
The petitioner’s justification for non-payment—that counsel presumed payment was made after receiving fee receipts from the CA and a subsequent resolution granting an extension to file a comment which did not mention the balance—was untenable. The Court ruled that such reliance on implications was unreasonable. Counsel had a duty to verify payment through a simple inquiry with his client or the court clerk. A client is bound by the mistakes and negligence of its counsel. The failure to pay constituted a clear disregard of a procedural rule that is essential to the perfection of an appeal. The right to appeal is statutory, and failure to comply with its requirements renders the lower court’s decision final and executory. The dismissal by the CA was therefore proper.