G.R. No. L-22799; April 25, 1969
TOMAS L. CANTING (doing business under the style and firm name, Lanting Security and Watchman Agency), petitioner-appellant, vs. RESTITUTO GUEVARA, HON. ANTONIO PAREDES and THE SHERIFF OF MANILA, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Respondent Restituto Guevara filed a suit against petitioner Tomas L. Canting for unpaid wages. On May 9, 1963, the City Court rendered judgment ordering petitioner to pay Guevara P380.00 in unpaid wages with legal interest, P180.00 for holiday and overtime wages, P50.00 as attorney’s fees, and costs. Petitioner received notice of the decision on May 20, 1963. On May 23, 1963, petitioner moved for reconsideration and/or new trial, which was denied by the City Judge on June 4, 1963; notice of denial was received by petitioner on June 14, 1963. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal and appeal bond on June 20, 1963, but failed to pay the appellate docket fee. On July 1, 1963, the City Judge denied the appeal for failure to perfect it within the 15-day reglementary period. On July 5, 1963, Guevara moved for execution of the judgment. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the July 1 order, pleading excusable negligence and honest mistake for the failure to perfect the appeal, accompanied by an affidavit of merits. The motion was denied on July 27, 1963, and an order of execution was issued on August 23, 1963. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Manila, seeking annulment of the July 1 order and subsequent orders. The Court of First Instance dismissed the petition on December 2, 1963, and denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on January 4, 1964, prompting this direct appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari and mandamus, thereby upholding the City Court’s denial of petitioner’s appeal due to failure to pay the appellate docket fee within the reglementary period.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and order of the Court of First Instance. The Court held that:
1. The excuse for failure to pay the appellate docket fee was unacceptable. Perfection of an appeal requires payment of the docket fee as a prerequisite. Petitioner’s claim that he delegated the task to his messenger due to being busy and trusting the messenger’s efficiency was deemed a “hackneyed and habitual subterfuge” insufficient to justify non-compliance with procedural rules. The messenger’s hearsay explanation that court personnel did not require payment and that he sent the money to his ill mother demonstrated gross unconcern and did not constitute a valid excuse.
2. The affidavit of merits submitted by petitioner was inadequate. It contained only conclusionary statements without averring specific facts constituting a valid defense, as required by the Rules of Court. Additionally, the stipulation between parties showed that petitioner had a direct contractual relationship with Antonio Francisco for security services and was obligated to pay Guevara’s wages, making an appeal futile. Thus, the City Court correctly denied the appeal, and the Court of First Instance properly dismissed the petition. Costs were imposed on petitioner.