G.R. No. 170728 ; August 31, 2011
D. M. WENCESLAO AND ASSOCIATES, INC., Petitioner, vs. CITY OF PARAÑAQUE, PARAÑAQUE CITY ASSESSOR, PARAÑAQUE CITY TREASURER and PARAÑAQUE CITY COUNCIL, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner D.M. Wenceslao and Associates, Inc. is the registered owner of over 200,000 square meters of reclaimed land in Barangay Tambo, Parañaque City. In 1996, the City of Parañaque passed Ordinance No. 96-16, which set market values for property assessment and provided a 70% discount on the base value for low, sunken, and undeveloped parcels like petitioner’s. However, the City Assessor initially assessed petitioner’s lots using the higher rates applicable to Barangay Baclaran. After petitioner informed the City Assessor of the error in 1998, the Tambo rates were applied starting the 3rd quarter of 1998, but petitioner claimed the 70% discount was still not applied.
Subsequently, the City Treasurer declared petitioner’s properties delinquent and scheduled them for auction on February 7, 2003. On February 4, 2003, petitioner filed a Complaint for collection of excess real property taxes and damages with a prayer for a temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction to stop the sale. The RTC denied the prayer for injunction. To prevent the auction, petitioner paid under protest the amount of ₱101,422,581.75 on February 7, 2003, bringing its total real property tax payments for 1995 to 2002 to ₱111,424,157.10. Petitioner amended its complaint on March 20, 2003, arguing that under the correct assessment, it should have paid only ₱6,172,979.51 instead of ₱111,424,157.10, and sought the return of the excess under the principle of solutio indebiti.
Respondents filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the cause of action was barred by prior judgment or the statute of limitations, the court lacked jurisdiction, and the complaint violated the rule on forum shopping. They contended the action was essentially a claim for a tax refund, which had prescribed under the Local Government Code. The RTC granted the motion to dismiss on November 20, 2003, finding petitioner’s cause of action was based on Section 253 of the Local Government Code and had prescribed, as the alleged overpayments occurred from 1995-1999 and 2001-2002, while the complaint was filed only in February 2003. The RTC also ruled that undoing the tax assessments and seeking a refund would involve a technical job reserved for administrative bodies like the Local and Central Boards of Assessment Appeals. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on May 4, 2004.
Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal on May 17, 2004, which the RTC approved on May 24, 2004. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal in a Resolution dated October 15, 2004, for failure to pay the required docketing fees. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, explaining that due to heavy workload and excusable inadvertence, its counsel overlooked the payment, which was subsequently made on October 20, 2004. The CA denied the motion on November 24, 2005, holding that the trial court’s dismissal order had become final and executory due to the failure to perfect the appeal by timely paying docket fees, and that heavy workload and inadvertence of counsel did not constitute excusable negligence.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing petitioner’s appeal for late payment of docket fees.

RULING

No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The payment of appellate court docket and other lawful fees within the prescribed period for taking an appeal is both mandatory and jurisdictional. Under Section 4, Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the appellant must pay these fees within the period for taking an appeal. Petitioner received the RTC’s Order on May 14, 2004, and thus had until May 31, 2004, to perfect its appeal by filing a notice of appeal and paying the fees. While petitioner filed its notice of appeal on May 17, 2004, it failed to pay the ₱3,000 appellate docket fee until October 20, 2004—approximately five months after the reglementary period had expired. The Court held that the failure to pay the docket fees on time results in the dismissal of the appeal, as the appellate court does not acquire jurisdiction. The reasons offered by petitioner—heavy workload and inadvertence of counsel—do not constitute fraud, accident, mistake, excusable negligence, or a similar supervening casualty that would warrant a relaxation of the rules. Therefore, the CA correctly dismissed the appeal for non-payment of docket fees within the reglementary period.