G.R. No. 177425 , June 18, 2014.
ALONZO GIPA, IMELDA MARO LLANO, JUANITO LUDOVICE, VIRGILIO GOJIT, DEMAR BIT ANGCOR, FELIPE MONTALBAN AND DAISY M. PLACER, Petitioners, vs. SOUTHERN LUZON INSTITUTE as represented by its Vice-President For Operations and Corporate Secretary, RUBEN G. ASUNCION, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Southern Luzon Institute (SLI) filed a Complaint for Recovery of Ownership and Possession with Damages against petitioners and others, alleging absolute ownership of a parcel of land covered by OCT No. P-28928, which petitioners were occupying without consent. Petitioners claimed a right to stay based on long-term occupation and alleged SLI procured its title through fraud. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of SLI, declaring it the absolute owner and ordering petitioners to vacate and pay attorney’s fees. Petitioners filed a Notice of Appeal. The Court of Appeals (CA) initially dismissed the appeal for non-payment of docket fees but reinstated it after petitioners presented proof of paying ₱3,000.00. The CA later required petitioners to remit an additional ₱30.00 for the legal research fund. Notice of this requirement was received by petitioners’ counsel on March 13, 2006. Petitioners failed to comply for nine months. Consequently, the CA dismissed the appeal for failure to fully pay the appeal fees. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, attaching a ₱30.00 postal money order and invoking liberal application of the rules, but the CA denied it.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners for failure to remit the amount of thirty pesos (₱30.00) after having paid a substantial portion of the docket fees.

RULING

The Petition fails. The Supreme Court ruled that the payment of the full amount of appellate court docket and lawful fees is mandatory and jurisdictional. The CA correctly dismissed the appeal for petitioners’ failure to perfect it by not fully paying the required fees. The Court emphasized that concomitant to the liberal interpretation of procedural rules is the burden on the party invoking liberality to adequately explain their failure to abide by the rules. Petitioners failed to provide a plausible explanation for their nine-month delay in paying the meager ₱30.00 balance. The fact that a substantial amount was paid does not excuse the deficiency. The exceptions to the strict application of the rules on payment of docket fees were not present, as there was no showing of persuasive reasons, good faith, immediate payment within a reasonable time, special circumstances, or a cause not attributable to petitioners’ fault. The argument regarding the retroactive application of Republic Act No. 9406 (exempting PAO clients from fees) was raised only in the Reply and could not be considered, as the law took effect after the CA’s dismissal and petitioners did not demonstrate that they availed of the PAO’s services at the time of filing the appeal. The dismissal of the appeal rendered the RTC Decision final and executory.