G.R. No. L-22705 November 27, 1968
ANTHONY CHAN, plaintiff-appellee, vs. OCEANIC WIRELESS NETWORK, INC., defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On July 18, 1962, plaintiff Anthony Chan filed an action for damages against defendant Oceanic Wireless Network, Inc. in the Justice of the Peace Court of Mati, Davao. The court ruled in favor of Chan, ordering the defendant to pay P1,036.49 as actual damages and P300.00 as attorney’s fees. Defendant’s counsel received notice of the judgment on October 25, 1962. The next day, October 26, 1962, the defendant filed a notice of appeal to the Court of First Instance, deposited a P25.00 appeal bond in cash with the Municipal Treasurer, and submitted a postal money order for P12.00 payable to the clerk of the Court of First Instance of Davao for the appellate court docket fee. The correct docket fee required under the old Rule 130, Section 5 of the Rules of Court was P32.00. The record was transmitted to the Court of First Instance, whose clerk acknowledged receipt on November 10, 1962. Two days after the 15-day period to perfect the appeal expired, the plaintiff moved to dismiss the appeal for failure to pay the full docket fee. The Court of First Instance dismissed the appeal on November 17, 1962. The defendant’s motion for reconsideration was denied on December 22, 1962. Defendant appealed, citing good faith and an honest mistake by its counsel, a new practitioner, who purchased a P20.00 money order on November 16, 1962, to cover the shortage upon realizing the error.

ISSUE

Whether or not the appeal to the Court of First Instance of Davao was perfected in accordance with the old Rule 40, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, notwithstanding the failure to pay the full appellate court docket fee within the reglementary period.

RULING

No, the appeal was not perfected. The Supreme Court affirmed the order dismissing the appeal. The rule is settled that for appeals from inferior courts to Courts of First Instance, the full amount of the appellate court docket fee must be deposited within the 15-day period for perfecting an appeal. Failure to do so means the appeal is not deemed perfected. While the Court has relaxed this rule in instances where the failure was due to the mistake of a court clerk, justice of the peace, municipal treasurer, or other public officer, such relaxation is not warranted here. The failure to pay the full fee was due to the inexcusable negligence, if not ignorance, of the defendant’s counsel. His explanation of an honest mistake in computation was not credible, as the old Rule 130, Section 5 required no computation, and the P12.00 paid was even below the statutory minimum of P16.00. The fact that counsel was a new practitioner did not justify the negligence but should have made him more careful. Therefore, the dismissal of the appeal did not constitute a reversible error.