GR L 3911; (November, 1950) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-3911 December 29, 1950
REMIGIO MARASIGAN, petitioner, vs. PERFECTO R. PALACIO and JOSE N. LEUTERIO, Judges of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, and FAUSTO NORTE, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Remigio Marasigan was the defendant in a forcible entry and detainer case filed in the justice of the peace court of Libmanan, Camarines Sur by respondent Fausto Norte. After being sentenced to vacate the land and pay damages, Marasigan perfected his appeal to the Court of First Instance by filing the notice of appeal, bonds, and depositing P8 as docketing fee—the amount required by the clerk of the justice of the peace court. The record was certified to the Court of First Instance. Three months later, Norte moved to declare the appeal abandoned, arguing that the correct docketing fee under the Rules was P10, not P8. Marasigan objected, explaining he paid only P8 in reliance on the clerk’s instruction and expressed willingness to pay any deficiency. The Court of First Instance granted Norte’s motion and declared the appeal abandoned. When Marasigan sought to appeal that order, the court disapproved his record on appeal, deeming the order non-appealable. Marasigan then filed this petition for mandamus and certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of First Instance gravely abused its discretion in declaring the appeal from the justice of the peace court abandoned due to the petitioner’s underpayment of the docketing fee, where the underpayment resulted from the clerk’s error and the petitioner acted in good faith.
RULING
Yes. The petition for certiorari is granted. The Court of First Instance’s order declaring the appeal abandoned is set aside. The Supreme Court, citing Segovia vs. Barrios, held that it was a grave abuse of discretion to penalize the petitioner for relying in good faith on the clerk of the justice of the peace court, who instructed him to pay only P8. The Court emphasized that every citizen has the right to trust that public officers perform their duties correctly, and penalizing such reliance is repugnant to justice. Although an earlier case (Lazaro vs. Endencia) had applied a stricter rule, the Court declined to follow it blindly to avoid manifest injustice. The appeal should be docketed and allowed to proceed upon payment by Marasigan of the deficient amount to complete the docketing fee. Costs against the respondents.
AI Generated by Armztrong.