G.R. No. L-5736; January 30, 1954
VALENTIN ALIGARBES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. JUAN AGUILAR, GAUDIOSO SULTAN, Jr. and JOSEFA YULO, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

The plaintiff, Valentin Aligarbes, was allowed by the Justice of the Peace Court of Gandara, Samar, to sue as a pauper in a forcible entry case. After hearing, his complaint was dismissed. Within the reglementary period, he filed a motion to appeal in forma pauperis along with a notice of appeal to the Court of First Instance. The Justice of the Peace, by order dated July 25, 1950, declared he had no authority to permit the plaintiff to litigate as a pauper on appeal, stating such permission could only be granted by the Court of First Instance. Nevertheless, the judge transmitted the records to the superior court “for its proper determination in the premises.” On August 3, 1950, the clerk of the Samar Court of First Instance notified the defendants of the appeal and required them to file an answer. The defendants duly answered. During the hearing, while the plaintiff was testifying, the trial judge issued an order declaring the docketing of the case illegal due to non-payment of docket fees and the absence of a court order allowing a pauper’s appeal. The court held it had not acquired jurisdiction and, as the appeal period had expired, ordered the case returned to the Justice of the Peace Court for execution of its judgment. The plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to this appeal, which was subsequently certified as a pauper’s appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance erred in dismissing the appeal and ordering the execution of the Justice of the Peace Court’s judgment due to the non-payment of docket fees and the lack of a formal order allowing the plaintiff to appeal as a pauper.

RULING

Yes, the Court of First Instance erred. The Supreme Court held that the dismissal was a mistaken exercise of discretion. The Justice of the Peace had the authority, under Section 22, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, to permit the plaintiff to litigate as a pauper and could have excused him from paying money to perfect his appeal. The Justice of the Peace’s error as to the extent of his power should not prejudice the plaintiff. Although the plaintiff should have also asked permission from the Court of First Instance to continue his appeal in forma pauperis, he likely believed it unnecessary after the clerk docketed the case without requiring fees and notified the defendants. The lapse in strict procedural observance, arising from an honest mistake and not involving public policy, should be overlooked. The plaintiff took all necessary steps to perfect his appeal; the failure regarding fees was due to errors by the Justice of the Peace and the clerk of court. Given the plaintiff’s proven lack of means and the constitutional mandate that poverty shall not deny free access to courts, he should be afforded an opportunity to comply with procedural requirements. The Supreme Court ordered the record returned so the Justice of the Peace could rule on the petition to appeal as a pauper, and the Court of First Instance could subsequently act upon a request for exemption from payment of fees.