7/21/2019 034 Bautista vs Unangst

1/2

034 Bautista v. UnangstG.R. No. 173002, July 4, 2008TOPI : Timely payment of proper docket feesPON!NT! : REYES, R.T., J.:

"UT#OR : Mr. Z NOTES: Two iss es, one for rem one for sales, ! foc sedon t"e rem part # t added sales facts $ st to make sense

$" T%&

1 !n %&&', (amilton Salak rented a car from )en$amin )*+T!ST* w"o failed to ret rn t"e car after t"ree - days promptin/ t"e latter to file a complaint a/ainst "im demandin/ t"e s m of 01-1, -21.33 as payment for car rental fees, feesinc rred in locatin/ t"e car, attorney4s fees and ot"er incidental e5penses.

1. Salak and "is common6law wife, S"irley +N*N7ST, e5pressed willin/ness to pay # t since t"ey were t"en s"ort oncas", t"ey sold to )*+T!ST* a "o se and lot wit" ri/"t to rep rc"ase, specifyin/, amon/ ot"ers, t"at: % +N*N7ST, as8endor, s"all pay capital /ains ta5, c rrent real estate ta5es and tility #ills pertainin/ to t"e property9 1 if +N*N7STfails to rep rc"ase t"e property wit"in -3 days from t"e date of t"e deed, s"e and "er assi/ns s"all immediately 8acate t"e

premises and deli8er its possession to petitioner wit"o t need of a $ dicial order9 and - +N*N7ST ref sal to do so willentitle petitioner to take immediate possession of t"e property.

-. +N*N7ST failed to rep rc"ase t"e property wit"in t"e stip lated period. *s a res lt, )*+T!ST* filed a complaint for specific performance or reco8ery of possession, for s m of money, for consolidation of owners"ip and dama/es a/ainst+N*N7ST.

. T"e RT; r led in fa8or of 0etitioner )a tista

Respondents failed to interpose a timely appeal. (owe8er, on Septem#er %3, 133 , respondent +nan/st filed a petition for relief p rs ant to Section -< of t"e %&&2 R les on ;i8il 0roced re. S"e ar/ ed t"at s"e learned of t"edecision of t"e RT; only on Septem#er ', 133 w"en s"e recei8ed a copy of t"e motion for e5ec tion filed #y

petitioner. 0etitioner, on t"e ot"er "and, mo8ed for t"e dismissal of respondents petition on t"e /ro nd t"at t"e latter paidan ins fficient s m of 0133.33 as docket fees

!t appears t"at respondent +nan/st initially paid 0133.33 as docket fees as t"is was t"e amo nt assessed #y t"e;lerk of ;o rt of t"e RT;. Said amo nt was ins fficient as t"e proper filin/ fees amo nt to 0%,2%=.33.

Ne8ert"eless, t"e correct amo nt was s #se> ently paid #y said respondent on ?e#r ary 11, 133=.

T"e RT; /ranted t"e petition for relief. S #se> ently, it directed respondents to file a notice of appeal wit"intwenty6fo r 1 "o rs from receipt of t"e order. *ccordin/ly, on ?e#r ary 1-, 133=, respondents filed t"eir notice of appeal.

;* fo nd t"at t"e respondents "ad perfected an appeal 8ia petition for relief to #e a#le to appeal $ d/ment e8enw"en t"e fees were paid #eyond t"e period prescri#ed to #rin/ s c" action. !t also re8ersed t"e decision of t"eRT; findin/ t"e @eed of Sale wit" Ri/"t to Rep rc"ase a doc ment of sale e5ec ted #y t"e respondent in fa8or

of t"e petitioner and in f rt"er "oldin/ s c" contract as one of e> ita#le mort/a/e Sales iss e . (ence t"e case

I%%U!'%( : A"et"er t"e respondent perfected t"e appeal despite not payin/ t"e proper docket fees on time#!)* : Yes

R"TIO :0etitioner contends t"at respondents 0etition for Relief to )e *#le to *ppeal J d/ment, w"ic" pa8ed t"e way for t"eallowance of respondents appeal of t"e RT; decision, was filed wit"in t"e prescripti8e period # t t"e proper docket feesfor it were #elatedly paid. (e t" s posits t"at t"e RT; did not ac> ire $ risdiction o8er said petition. (a8in/ no

$ risdiction, t"e RT; co ld not "a8e allowed respondents to appeal.

7/21/2019 034 Bautista vs Unangst

2/2

On t"is iss e, respondent co nters t"at t"e #elated payment of proper docket fees was not d e to t"eir fa lt # t to t"eimproper assessment #y t"e ;lerk of ;o rt. Respondent asserts t"e r lin/ of t"e ;* t"at t"e co rt may e5tend t"e time for t"e payment of t"e docket fees if t"ere is a $ stifia#le reason for t"e fail re to pay t"e correct amo nt. Moreo8er,respondent ar/ es t"at petitioner failed to contest t"e RT; Order dated ?e#r ary 1%, 133 t"at allowed t"e payment of s pplementary docket fees. 0etitioner failed to file a motion for reconsideration or a petition for certiorari to t"e "i/"er co rt to > estion said order. Ae a/ree wit" respondents. T"eir fail re to pay t"e correct amo nt of docket fees was d e to a $ stifia#le reason. T"e ri/"t to appeal is a p rely stat tory ri/"t. Not #ein/ a nat ral ri/"t or a part of d e process, t"e ri/"t to appeal may #ee5ercised only in t"e manner and in accordance wit" t"e r les pro8ided t"erefor.?or t"is reason, payment of t"e f llamo nt of t"e appellate co rt docket and ot"er lawf l fees wit"in t"e re/lementary period is mandatory and $ risdictional.

Ne8ert"eless, as t"is ;o rt r led in *ranas 8. Endona, t"e strict application of t"e $ risdictional nat re of t"e a#o8e r le on payment of appellate docket fees may #e miti/ated nder e5ceptional circ mstances to #etter ser8e t"e interest of $ stice. !tis always wit"in t"e power of t"is ;o rt to s spend its own r les, or to e5cept a partic lar case from t"eir operation,w"ene8er t"e p rposes of $ stice re> ire it. !n not a few instances, t"e ;o rt rela5ed t"e ri/id application of t"e r les of proced re to afford t"e parties t"e opport nityto f lly 8entilate t"eir cases on t"e merits. T"is is in line wit" t"e time6"onored principle t"at cases s"o ld #e decided onlyafter /i8in/ all parties t"e c"ance to ar/ e t"eir ca ses and defenses. ?or, it is far #etter to dispose of a case on t"e meritw"ic" is a primordial end, rat"er t"an on a tec"nicality, if it #e t"e case t"at may res lt in in$ stice. T"e emer/in/ trend int"e r lin/s of t"is ;o rt is to afford e8ery party6liti/ant t"e amplest opport nity for t"e proper and $ st determination of "isca se, free from t"e constraints of tec"nicalities.

;onsiderin/ t"e fore/oin/, t"ere is a need to s spend t"e strict application of t"e r les so t"at t"e petitioners wo ld #e a#leto f lly and finally prosec te t"eir claim on t"e merits at t"e appellate le8el rat"er t"an fail to sec re $ stice on atec"nicality, for, indeed, t"e /eneral o#$ecti8e of proced re is to facilitate t"e application of $ stice to t"e ri8al claims of contendin/ parties, #earin/ always in mind t"at proced re is not to "inder # t to promote t"e administration of $ stice.

"%! )"+ *O TRIN! : t"e /eneral o#$ecti8e of proced re is to facilitate t"e application of $ stice to t"e ri8al claimsof contendin/ parties, #earin/ always in mind t"at proced re is not to "inder # t to promote t"e administration of $ stice.

*I%%!NTING ON URRING OPINION'%( :