GR 155824; (January, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 155824 ; January 31, 2007
GILLAMAC’S MARKETING, INC., Petitioner, vs. ABOITIZ SHIPPING CORPORATION AND THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Gillamac’s Marketing, Inc. shipped assorted appliances via respondent Aboitiz Shipping Corporation’s vessel. The bill of lading valued the cargo at P740,833. The shipment arrived after a nine-month delay and in damaged condition. Petitioner refused delivery and filed a collection case before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC ruled in petitioner’s favor, awarding actual damages, unearned income (15% of actual damages), legal interest, and attorney’s fees. Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
The CA initially dismissed the appeal due to respondent’s failure to pay the required appeal and docket fees. Respondent’s counsel filed a motion for reconsideration, explaining that his oversight was due to attending to his ailing father and an administrative error by a staff member, and he subsequently paid the fees. The CA, after requiring comment from petitioner, recalled its dismissal and reinstated the appeal. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in reinstating respondent’s appeal despite the initial failure to pay appeal and docket fees.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the CA did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The failure to pay docket fees does not automatically mandate the dismissal of an appeal; it is a matter within the appellate court’s sound discretion. A writ of certiorari under Rule 65 requires proof that the lower court’s discretion was exercised in a capricious, whimsical, or arbitrary manner, amounting to an evasion of a positive duty. The records showed no malice or prejudice in the CA’s action. Respondent’s counsel candidly admitted the oversight, which was not intentional, and promptly rectified it by paying the fees. The Court emphasizes the policy of affording litigants the amplest opportunity for a just disposition of their causes, advising courts to proceed with caution to avoid depriving a party of the right to appeal over technicalities. Thus, the CA acted within its discretion in reinstating the appeal to ensure substantive justice. The petition was dismissed.