GR 140894; (November, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 140894 ; November 27, 2000
Rosario Yambao and Rebecca Yambao, petitioners, vs. Court of Appeals and Guillermo Ligon, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Guillermo Ligon filed a petition for the cancellation of petitioner Rebecca Yambao’s name from a Transfer Certificate of Title. The trial court granted the petition ex-parte due to Rebecca’s failure to answer. A motion for new trial was later granted. Meanwhile, petitioner Rosario Yambao filed a separate action for specific performance against Ligon and her sister Rebecca concerning the same property. The cases were consolidated, and the trial court eventually dismissed Rosario’s complaint and granted Ligon’s petition for cancellation.
Petitioners filed a notice of appeal and paid P820.00 in docket fees as assessed by the Clerk of Court of the RTC. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal because the payment was deficient by P20.00 for the legal research fund. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, explaining that the deficiency was due to the Clerk of Court’s erroneous assessment, which they later paid. The appellate court denied their motion.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the appeal due to an insufficient payment of docket fees attributable to the trial court clerk’s error.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ resolutions. While the payment of docket fees within the reglementary period is mandatory for the perfection of an appeal, the dismissal of an appeal for non-payment is discretionary, not automatic. This discretion must be exercised wisely with a view to substantial justice.
The Court ruled that the failure to pay the full fee was not due to petitioners’ fault but to the erroneous assessment made by the Clerk of Court of the RTC, which was admitted in a certification. Petitioners relied in good faith on this official assessment. Under these circumstances, the appellate court should have allowed the appeal to proceed, especially since petitioners manifested willingness to pay and subsequently paid the minimal deficiency. The strict application of procedural rules was unjustified where it would defeat substantial justice, and the dismissal constituted a grave abuse of discretion. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for proper proceedings.