G.R. No. 215761 , September 13, 2021
HEIRS OF TEOFILO PACAÑA AND PEREGRINA APOSTOL, NAMELY: OLGA A. PACAÑA, ESTER P. MARCAIDA, CARMELO P. MARCAIDA, JR., CARLO P. MARCAIDA, LIBERTY P. MARCAIDA, LANA M. MAGHIRANG, AND GRACE V. PACAÑA, PETITIONERS, VS. SPOUSES FLORENTINO MASALIHIT AND ANITA MASALIHIT, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioners (Pacaña heirs) filed an Amended Complaint for quieting of title, recovery of ownership and possession, annulment of documents, and damages against respondents (Masalihit heirs) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC dismissed the complaint in a Decision dated December 13, 2005. Petitioners received the Decision on December 14, 2005, and filed a Notice of Appeal via registered mail on December 28, 2005, within the reglementary period. Attached to the Notice of Appeal were five Postal Money Orders (PMOs) amounting to P4,040.00, intended as payment for appellate docket and filing fees. However, these PMOs were erroneously made payable to “The Clerk of Court, Court of Appeals,” instead of the RTC Clerk of Court. When the records were transmitted to the Court of Appeals (CA), no proof of payment was attached. The CA required petitioners to submit proof of payment, which they did by providing photocopies of the PMOs and a Certification from the Postmaster. The CA later dismissed the appeal in a Resolution dated December 19, 2012, finding no payment had been made. Petitioners moved for reconsideration. In a Resolution dated October 27, 2014, the CA denied the motion, acknowledging the PMOs were attached to the Notice of Appeal and received by the RTC, but ruled the appeal was not perfected because the fees were not paid to the proper court (the RTC) due to the erroneous payee on the PMOs. Hence, the appealed decision became final and executory.

ISSUE

Whether or not the CA erred in ruling that the appeal was not perfected despite the timely filing of the Notice of Appeal as the PMOs intended as appellate docket and filing fees attached therewith were addressed to an incorrect payee.

RULING

Yes, the CA erred. The petition is meritorious. The Supreme Court ruled that the payment of docket fees, while mandatory, does not warrant automatic dismissal for failure to pay within the reglementary period; its application is discretionary and must be exercised with justice and fair play. The Court found that the petitioners substantially complied with the payment requirement. The PMOs were actually delivered to the Clerk of Court of the RTC along with the Notice of Appeal within the reglementary period. The error in naming the payee as the CA Clerk of Court did not negate the fact of payment, as the delivery to the proper court (the RTC) constituted substantial performance. The applicable precedent is Spouses Buenaflor v. Court of Appeals, not Saint Louis University v. Cordero, as in the latter case, no payment was attached to the Notice of Appeal at all. The Court emphasized that technicalities should not frustrate substantial justice, especially where, as here, the PMOs were delivered to the correct court official (the RTC Clerk of Court) who accepted them and forwarded the records to the CA. The CA Resolutions were reversed and set aside. The case was remanded to the CA to give due course to the appeal.