Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=40412:g-r-no-140321-august-24,-2000-barangay-24-of-legazpi-city-v-elias-imperial&amp;catid=1396&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 02:48:35+00:00

Document:
BARANGAY 24 OF LEGAZPI CITY represented by BGY. CHAIRMAN RICARDO ABUNDA, Petitioner, v. ELIAS IMPERIAL, Respondent.
However, before the order of demolition could be carried out, petitioner herein, as represented by its new barangay chairman — Ricardo Abunda, filed on December 10, 1997, an action for annulment of the May 29, 1995 judgment of the MTC with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Legazpi City (Civil Case No. 9471). According to petitioner, respondent and Lorenzo, its former barangay chairman, employed fraud during the trial before the MTC in order to defeat the lawful claims of the barangay in said property. 2 On December 15, 1997, respondent filed a motion to dismiss the action for annulment. The motion was granted and on March 23, 1998, Civil Case No. 9471 was dismissed. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but this was denied by the trial court in its order dated May 26, 1998.
In the Resolution dated September 24, 1998, the Court required petitioner to remit within five (5) days from notice, the additional amount of P665.00 to complete payment of the prescribed docket and other legal fees; otherwise, the petition will be dismissed. Copy of said Resolution was received by counsel for petitioner on October 6, 1998 as per return card (p. 51-A, rollo). From the report of the Judicial Records Division dated March 16, 1999, it appears that petitioner has not remitted the required additional amount of docketing fees.
On September 23, 1999, 6 the appellate court denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
Sometime in April, 1999, herein counsel received the resolution of the Honorable Court of Appeals dismissing the petition for failure to pay docket fees. . . .
Payment in full of docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory. Non-compliance therewith may cause the dismissal of the appeal pursuant to Sec. 1, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court . . .
It is the "duty of the appellant" in the Court of Appeals, fifteen (15) days from the date of the notice referred [to] in the preceding section, to pay to the clerk of the Court of Appeals the fee for the docketing of the appeal." The appellants did not comply. seasonably with this duty. Concededly, they paid forty one (41) days late. For such tardiness, they must suffer the sanction imposed by the Rules of Court - dismissal of their appeal . . . .
In the present case, the docket fees paid by petitioner were insufficient. Petitioner was made plainly aware of this circumstance by its receipt of the September 24, 1998 resolution of the Court of Appeals which declared that petitioner had to pay the additional amount of P665.00 in docket fees within five days from receipt of such resolution. However, despite such notice, petitioner failed to pay or to even take the most rudimentary of measures to ensure the payment of this amount to the appellate court, thereby resulting in the dismissal of its petition on March 29, 1999. From the time petitioner was notified of the deficiency in the docket fees up until the time his petition was actually dismissed, petitioner had approximately six months to see to it that the docket fees assessed by the appellate court as still due were actually paid, but it did not.
A client is bound by the action of his counsel, as well as by his mistake or his negligence. 11 Besides, in the instant case, a representative of petitioner was immediately given notice by petitioner’s counsel that the docket fees paid were insufficient. 12 If it was truly interested in questioning the orders of the trial court, petitioner should have seen to it that such fees were immediately paid.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review on certiorari is hereby DENIED.
3.	The case was assigned to the Twelfth Division, composed of Justices Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Chairman; Presbitero J. Velasco, ponente; and B.A. Adefuin de la Cruz.
7.	Suson v. Court of Appeals, 278 SCRA 284 (1997), citing Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. v. Asuncion, 170 SCRA 274 (1989).
8.	297 SCRA 587 (1998).
9.	257 SCRA 373 (1996).
11.	Agpalo, The Code of Professional Responsibility For Lawyers, 207 (19911, citing Viviero v. Santos, 98 Phil 500 (1956); Inocando v. Inocando, 110 Phil 266 (1960).
13.	Ortiz v. Court of Appeals, 299 SCRA 708 (1998); Republic v. Register of Deeds of Quezon, 244 SCRA 543 (1995); Bello v. Fernando, 4 SCRA 138 (1962).
14.	Pedrosa v. Hill, 257 SCRA 373 (1996), citing Achanrobles.com.ph:red v. Minister of Labor, 119 SCRA 306 (1982).

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