G.R. No. 173942; October 15, 2007
FIL-ESTATE PROPERTIES, INC. and FAIRWAYS AND BLUE-WATERS RESORT AND COUNTRY CLUB, INC., Petitioners, vs. HON. MARIETTA J. HOMENA-VALENCIA, in her capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 1, Regional Trial Court, Kalibo, Aklan, and SULLIAN SY NAVAL, Respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Sullian Sy Naval filed a complaint for recovery of possession against petitioners Fil-Estate and Fairways, alleging she was the registered owner of a lot within the petitioners’ golf course development. She claimed petitioners took possession and constructed a portion of the golf course without her consent. Petitioners, in their answer, claimed a prior joint venture with the original seller and that Naval’s lot was part of a proposed lot swap. Their counsel, Atty. Alfredo Lagamon, Jr., filed a motion to postpone pre-trial due to his impending resignation. The pre-trial was reset, but petitioners failed to appear. Consequently, the RTC allowed Naval to present evidence ex parte.
The RTC ruled in favor of Naval, ordering restitution and awarding substantial damages. Petitioners, through new counsel, filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing denial of due process as notices were sent to their former counsel who had resigned. The RTC denied the motion, noting the former counsel never formally withdrew. Petitioners then filed a notice of appeal on the last day of the reglementary period but failed to pay the corresponding docket fees simultaneously. The fees were paid only after the appeal period had lapsed. The RTC thus denied the appeal for non-payment of fees, a ruling affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the dismissal of petitioners’ appeal due to their failure to pay the appellate docket fees within the reglementary period.

RULING

No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The payment of prescribed docket fees within the reglementary period for perfecting an appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional. Failure to comply renders the decision final and executory. The Court rejected petitioners’ argument that their immediate filing of a notice of appeal, followed by a belated payment of fees, substantially complied with the rules. Jurisdictional requirements, such as the timely payment of fees, cannot be subject to liberal interpretation. The law mandates that both the notice of appeal and the payment of fees must be completed within the appeal period. Petitioners’ receipt of the order denying their motion for reconsideration started the fresh period to appeal, but their payment of fees outside this period was fatal. The Court also found no merit in the due process claim, as service of notices to counsel of record is binding on the client until a formal withdrawal is approved. Thus, the RTC’s decision had become final and executable.