G.R. No. 181182; April 10, 2013
BOARDWALK BUSINESS VENTURES, INC., Petitioner, vs. ELVIRA A. VILLAREAL (deceased) substituted by Reynaldo P. Villareal, Jr.-spouse, Shekinah Marie Villareal-Azugue-daughter, Reynaldo A. Villareal ill-son, Shahani A. Villareal-daughter, and Billy Ray A. Villareal-son, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Boardwalk Business Ventures, Inc. filed an Amended Complaint for replevin against respondent Elvira A. Villareal before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila, Branch 27, for her alleged failure to pay a car loan. The MeTC ruled in favor of Boardwalk. Villareal appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, which reversed the MeTC decision. Boardwalk received the RTC’s Order denying its Motion for Reconsideration on January 19, 2007. On February 5, 2007, Boardwalk filed with the Manila RTC a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review, praying for a 30-day extension, and paid the corresponding docket fees there. On March 7, 2007, Boardwalk filed its Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed the petition outright. It held that the Motion for Extension and payment of docket fees should have been filed with the CA, not the RTC, as required by Rule 42, Section 1 of the Rules of Court. Consequently, the subsequent filing of the Petition on March 7 was beyond the reglementary period. The CA also cited other procedural defects: the prayer for a 30-day extension exceeded the maximum 15-day extension allowed; the Petition lacked a board resolution or secretary’s certificate authorizing the signatory; and it failed to attach required pleadings and documents per Rule 42, Sections 2 and 3. Boardwalk filed a Motion for Reconsideration, subsequently paid the docket fees with the CA, and submitted the required secretary’s certificate and pleadings. The CA denied the motion, holding that even if a 15-day extension were granted from the expiration of the original period, the Petition filed on March 7 was still filed late.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed outright the Petition for Review due to procedural lapses, specifically for filing the Motion for Extension and paying docket fees with the wrong court (RTC instead of CA), filing beyond the reglementary period, and other procedural deficiencies.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the Petition. The right to appeal is a statutory privilege that must be exercised in accordance with the provisions of law. Strict compliance with the rules on appeal is required. Under Rule 42, Section 1, a motion for extension to file a petition for review and payment of docket fees must be filed with the Court of Appeals. Boardwalk’s filing of these with the RTC was a fatal error, rendering its subsequent Petition filed on March 7, 2007, as filed out of time. The original 15-day reglementary period to appeal expired on February 3, 2007. Even if the maximum 15-day extension were granted, the Petition should have been filed by February 20, 2007. The filing on March 7 was indisputably late. The other procedural defects (excessive prayer for extension, defective verification/certification, and lack of required pleadings) provided additional grounds for dismissal under Rule 42, Section 3. The subsequent curative actions (payment of fees, submission of certificate and pleadings) did not cure the jurisdictional defect of filing the appeal beyond the allowed period. The Petition was denied for failure to comply with the mandatory procedural rules.