G.R. No. L-116; January 26, 1946
Roberto Segovia, petitioner, vs. Conrado Barrios, Judge of First Instance of Iloilo, and Jacobina Bretaña, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Roberto Segovia, as plaintiff in an unlawful detainer (desahucio) case filed in the Municipal Court of Iloilo, appealed from a judgment dismissing his complaint. Within the reglementary period, he paid the clerk of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo the sum of P8, which was the amount the clerk required as the docket fee based on the clerk’s practice and bona fide interpretation of the Rules. Respondent Jacobina Bretaña, the defendant-appellee, moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the correct docket fee was P16 and had not been fully paid. Judge Pedro R. Davila denied the motion, finding the shortfall was due to the clerk’s good faith error and not the appellant’s fault. Judge Davila gave the appellant one week to complete the payment, which he did. Subsequently, Judge Emilio Rilloraza, acting in place of Judge Davila, granted Bretaña’s motion for reconsideration, set aside Judge Davila’s order, and dismissed the appeal for failure to perfect it by paying the full docket fee within the 15-day period. Respondent Judge Conrado Barrios later denied the appellant’s motion for reconsideration and ordered the case remanded to the municipal court for execution. Segovia filed this petition for certiorari to annul the orders of Judges Rilloraza and Barrios.

ISSUE

Whether the appellate court (Judges Rilloraza and Barrios) committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction in dismissing Segovia’s appeal for incomplete payment of the docket fee, given that the appellant paid the amount initially required by the clerk of court in good faith and promptly complied with a subsequent order to pay the balance.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, finding the orders of Judges Rilloraza and Barrios constituted a grave abuse of discretion. The Court held it was whimsical, unjust, and unwarranted to dismiss the appeal under the circumstances. The petitioner had duly filed his notice of appeal and paid the docket fee in the amount (P8) required by the clerk of the appellate court, based on the clerk’s bona fide practice and interpretation of the Rules. There was legitimate controversy over the correct fee, as the applicable provision (whether for claims under P200 or for cases not concerning property) was unclear, prompting the Court to note it would later promulgate an amendatory rule to resolve it. The petitioner acted in good faith, relying on the public officer charged with collecting the fee, and promptly paid the additional P8 when ordered by Judge Davila. A citizen has the right to assume a public officer performs his duties correctly according to law; penalizing such reliance is repugnant to justice. The Court set aside the challenged orders and reinstated and affirmed the orders of Judge Davila dated August 11 and August 25, 1945. Costs were adjudged against respondent Bretaña.