G.R. No. 174193; December 7, 2011
SAMUEL JULIAN, represented by his Attorney-in-Fact, ROBERTO DELA CRUZ, Petitioner, vs. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE CITY SHERIFF, Respondents.

FACTS

This case originated from a Real Estate Mortgage executed by Thelma Julian (mother of petitioner Samuel Julian) to secure a housing loan from respondent Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP). After Thelma’s death and due to arrearages, DBP foreclosed the mortgaged property. The property was sold at public auction in 1983, with DBP as the highest bidder. Title was consolidated in DBP’s name in 1984. Petitioner later filed a case before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Roxas City for the cancellation of DBP’s title, arguing that the Special Power of Attorney used in the foreclosure was invalidated by Thelma’s death. The RTC eventually dismissed the case for failure to prosecute in an Order dated January 28, 2004. Petitioner, through new counsel, filed a timely Notice of Appeal on April 26, 2004, but failed to pay the required docket and other lawful fees. The Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed the appeal precisely for this non-payment. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, attaching postal money orders as payment for the fees, and explaining that the failure was due to oversight and his counsel’s failure to inform him of the requirement. The CA denied the motion, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the payment rule.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in strictly applying the rules on the payment of docket fees and in dismissing the appeal for non-payment thereof.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and upheld the CA’s dismissal. The Court ruled that the payment of the full docket fee within the prescribed period is mandatory and jurisdictional for the perfection of an appeal. It is not a mere technicality but an essential requirement; without it, the decision appealed from becomes final and executory. The Court found no compelling or justifiable reason to relax the rule in this case. Petitioner’s excuse of oversight and his counsel’s failure to inform him was deemed insufficient and flimsy. The act of attaching payment to the Motion for Reconsideration did not cure the jurisdictional defect, as the payment was made beyond the reglementary period for perfecting an appeal. The Court distinguished this case from Yambao v. Court of Appeals, where relaxation was allowed, as no persuasive reason for the procedural lapse was shown here. Thus, the CA correctly dismissed the appeal for failure to pay the required docket fees.