G.R. No. 150241 ; November 4, 2004
EDUARDO S. MERCADO, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, LETICIA P. MORALES, ESTATE OF CONCEPCION CLAUDIO GATMAITAN, CARMELIE C. GATMAITAN and ARMANDO V. GATMAITAN, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Eduardo Mercado extended loans to respondent Armando Gatmaitan for renovating conjugal properties. In 1989, Gatmaitan’s wife, Concepcion, filed a case for separation and liquidation of conjugal assets. Mercado moved to intervene as a creditor, but his motion was denied by the trial court in 1990. Mercado claimed he did not learn of this denial or the subsequent 1994 judgment in the main case. In 1999, through new counsel, he filed a motion for early resolution of his intervention motion before a different branch. This was denied, prompting Mercado to file a petition for relief, which was also denied. He received the order denying his motion for reconsideration on November 17, 2000.
Mercado then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals by registered mail on January 16, 2001, the last day of the 60-day reglementary period. However, he paid the required docket fees only on January 17, 2001, one day late. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition precisely for this late payment. His motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Mercado’s petition for certiorari due to the late payment of docket fees?

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The petition was procedurally infirm on two grounds. First, Mercado availed of the wrong remedy; a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 was improper. The correct mode to assail the Court of Appeals’ resolution was a petition for review under Rule 45. Second, and more critically, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for late payment of docket fees. Jurisdiction over a case is only vested upon payment of the prescribed docket fees. While the rules allow payment within a reasonable time if not made upon filing, such payment must never be made beyond the applicable reglementary period. Here, the reglementary period for filing a petition for certiorari was 60 days. Mercado filed his petition on the last day but paid the fees a day after the period expired. This fatal procedural lapse warranted dismissal. Liberal construction of procedural rules cannot rescue a party from wanton disregard of mandatory requirements, especially one as fundamental as the timely payment of fees which confers jurisdiction.