Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=45877:148739&amp;catid=1459&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 04:07:16+00:00

Document:
FAR CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. RENATO MAGDALUYO, ANTONIO VALDEZ, and ROLANDO CHUA, Respondents.
This is the question to be resolved in this case.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered, ordering defendant FAR Corporation to pay plaintiffs RENATO T. MAGDALUYO, ANTONIO L. VALDEZ and ROLANDO E. CHUA, Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand (P750,000.00) Pesos as broker's commission with legal interest at the rate of six (6%) [percent] per annum from 2 May 1990 until fully paid; however said commissions, inclusive of interest, should be divided equally in four parts, and - given to each plaintiff, and - to defendant Fermin Manuel Caram III; attorney's fees equivalent to twenty percent of the amounts due; and costs of the suit.
The complaint, insofar as defendants Rosa O. Caram and Fermin Manuel Caram III (sic), is dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence.
Not fully satisfied with the trial court's Decision, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration4 on 02 March 1999, to which respondents filed a Comment5 dated 18 March 1999.
On 18 July 2000, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals an Ex-Parte Manifestation and Submission dated 17 July 2000.11 In said pleading, petitioner manifested that it has paid the required appeal docket fees with the trial court, whose Decision and order were being appealed, and prayed that the receipts for payment be included as part of the records of the case. Attached therewith were the originals of the Clerk of Court, RTC-Makati Official Receipts, with numbers 12856671 (for P300) and 12857288 (for P200),12 both dated 13 July 2000.
On 28 July 2000, respondents filed a Comment with Motion to Dismiss before the Court of Appeals.13 Respondents moved for the dismissal of the appeal on the ground that petitioner failed to pay the docket fees within the period for taking an appeal.
From the records it appear(s) that appellant filed his notice of appeal on February 21, 2000. Yet based on the "Ex-Parte Manifestation and Submission" filed by counsel for defendant-appellant it appears that the appeal docket fees were paid only on July 13, 2000, obviously way beyond the period for perfecting an appeal. In view thereof, the present appeal is DISMISSED for non-payment of docket fees within the period for perfecting an appeal.
After a reading of the Motion for Reconsideration filed by defendant-appellant Far Corporation, we find no reason to disturb our previous ruling dismissing the appeal for non-payment of docket fee within the period of perfecting an appeal.
The contention of defendant appellant that under Sec. 1(c), Rule 50, the ground to dismiss an appeal is failure to pay the docket fee but not failure to pay the docket fee on time, is untenable. On this respect, it is worth stressing that based on the records, it took defendant-appellant almost five (5) months before paying the required docket fee. Such unreasonable delay would be tantamount to failure to pay the docket fee which is a ground for dismissal of an appeal pursuant to Sec. 1(c) of the Rules of Court.
The reliance of petitioner in the three aforementioned cases is misplaced.
In Yambao v. Court of Appeals,26 the failure of the petitioners to pay the correct amount of docket fees was due to the erroneous assessment by the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court, Valenzuela City (the assessment was short by P20), as evidenced by the 10 December 1999 Certification issued by the Office of the Clerk of Court. The fault was not upon the petitioners themselves, but upon a civil servant. In this case, we even reiterated the ruling that the payment of docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory for the perfection of an appeal.
In the case of Ayala Land, Inc. v. Sps. Morris and Socorro Carpo,27 the appellant was likewise unable to pay the correct amount of docket fees due to an error of an officer of the Court in computing the correct amount (the assessment was short by P5). Therefore, there was no fault on its part.
The rules with respect to the payment of the appellate docket fees have substantially changed with the advent of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure.
An ordinary appeal from a Decision or final order of the RTC to the Court of Appeals must be made within fifteen (15) days from notice.34 And within this period, the full amount of the appellate court docket and other lawful fees must be paid to the clerk of the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from.
c. Failure of the appellant to pay the docket and other lawful fees as provided in Section 4 of Rule 41; . . . .
Notwithstanding the mandatory nature of the requirement of payment of appellate docket fees, we also recognize that its strict application is qualified by the following: first, failure to pay those fees within the reglementary period allows only discretionary, not automatic, dismissal; second, such power should be used by the court in conjunction with its exercise of sound discretion in accordance with the tenets of justice and fair play, as well as with a great deal of circumspection in consideration of all attendant circumstances.
The payment of the full amount of the docket fee is an indispensable step for the perfection of an appeal.45 In both original and appellate cases, the court acquires jurisdiction over the case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fees.46 Inasmuch as the payment of the appellate docket fees in this case was made 132 days after the expiration of the period for the perfection of an appeal, the Court of Appeals did not acquire jurisdiction over the case, except to order its dismissal. Thus, the Decision rendered by the RTC, Branch 137, Makati City, in Civil Case No. 97-2745, dated 21 December 1998, became final and executory by operation of law.
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the petition is hereby DISMISSED. The assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
2 Penned by Judge Santiago Javier Ranada, Rollo, pp. 99-103.
7 Petition for Certiorari, p. 2; Rollo, p. 10.
14 Records, p. 26; Thirteenth Division, penned by Associate Justice Eloy R. Bello, Jr., with Associate Justices Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis and Eliezer R. De Los Santos, concurring.
19 Records, p. 38; Former Thirteenth Division.
22 G.R. No. 140894, 27 November 2000, 346 SCRA 141.
23 G.R. No. 140162, 22 November 2000, 345 SCRA 579.
24 G.R. No. 114726, 14 February 1996, 253 SCRA 632.
30 Resolution of the Court En Banc dated 11 January 1983, E. Appellate Procedure, par. 20.
31 Resolution of the Court En Banc dated 04 September 1990, effective 02 November 1990.
32 Lazaro v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 137761, 06 April 2000, 330 SCRA 208.
33 Badillo v. Tayag, G.R. No. 143976 and No. 145846, 03 April 2003, 400 SCRA 494.
34 Rule 41, Section 3, 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure.
35 Manalili v. De Leon, G.R. No. 140858, 27 November 2001, 370 SCRA 625.
36 Navarro v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co., G.R. No. 138031, 27 May 2004, citing Alfonso v. Andres, G.R. No. 139611, 04 October 2002, 390 SCRA 465.
37 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure.
39 Navarro v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co., supra.
40 G.R. No. 149227, 11 December 2003, 418 SCRA 381, 387.
42 G.R. No. 136121, 16 August 1999, 312 SCRA 463.
43 Ibid., at 467 (Emphasis ours).
45 Rodillas v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 119055, 10 July 1995, 245 SCRA 702, citing Dorego v. Perez, G.R. No. L-24922, 02 January 1968, 22 SCRA 8, and Bello v. Fernando, G.R. No. L-16970, 30 January 1962, 4 SCRA 135.
46 Ibid., citing Acda v. Minister of Labor, G.R. No. L-51607, 15 December 1982, 119 SCRA 306.
47 Lazaro v. Court of Appeals, supra, citing Galang v. CA, G.R. No. 76221, 29 July 1991, 199 SCRA 683; Pedrosa v. Hill, G.R. No. 120804, 14 June 1996, 257 SCRA 373; Ditching v. CA, G.R. No. 109834, 18 October 1996, 263 SCRA 343; Ginete, et al. v. CA, G.R. No. 127596, 24 September 1998, 296 SCRA 38.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.