Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > November 1968 Decisions > G.R. No. L-22705 November 27, 1968 - ANTHONY CHAN v. OCEANIC WIRELESS NETWORK, INC.,:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-22705. November 27, 1968.]

ANTHONY CHAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. OCEANIC WIRELESS NETWORK, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

Galileo Sibala for Plaintiff-Appellee.

A. Olmeda & B. Bolcan, Jr., for Defendant-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; APPEALS; APPELLATE COURT DOCKET FEE; PAYMENT MUST BE MADE IN FULL. — The rule is settled that, in case of appeals from inferior courts to the Courts of First Instance, the amount of the appellate court docket fee should be deposited in full within a period of fifteen days. Thus, if half only of the amount is deposited and the other half is tendered after the expiration of such period, the appeal is not deemed perfected (Gambol and Burog v. Barcelona, Et Al., 106 Phil. 328, citing Lazaro v. Endencia, Et Al., 57 Phil. 552).

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; RELAXATION OF THE RULE TO PREVENT A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE. — In several instances this Court has relaxed the rule and then allowed the appeal in order to prevent a miscarriage of justice. For instance, where the appellants were from the very beginning ready and willing to pay the correct amount of docket fee and the failure to do so was caused by the mistake of either the clerk of Court of First Instance (Segovia v. Barrios, Et Al., 75 Phil. 764) or the clerk of the justice of the peace court (Marasigam v. Palacio, 87 Phil. 839), or of the justice of the peace and the municipal treasurer (Gambol and Burog v. Barcelona, supra), or of the municipal treasurer alone (Tagulao v. Padlanmundok, Et Al., L-15550, May 30, 1960; Barnido, Et. Al. v. Balana, L-26275, July 26, 1966), this Court held that it would be unjust to dismiss the appeal under the circumstances because: "Every citizen has the right to assume and trust that a public officer charged by law with certain duties knows his duties and performs them in accordance with law. To penalize such a citizen for relying upon said officer in all good faith is repugnant to justice."cralaw virtua1aw library

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR. — In the case at bar, the failure of the appellant to pay the full amount of appellate court docket fee was due to the inexcusable negligence of its counsel, if not indeed to his ignorance of the Rules. The explanation that such failure was caused by an honest mistake of said counsel in the computation of the amount required is not credible. Under Rule 30, Section 5 of the Rules of Court (old), no computation was necessary. Besides, the amount of P12.00 which was actually paid was below the statutory minimum of P16.00. Evidently, said counsel did not refer to the Rules. The fact that he was a new practitioner did not justify his negligence. If anything, it should have made him more careful in the handling of his cases.


D E C I S I O N


MAKALINTAL, J.:


This is an appeal from the order of the Court of First Instance of Davao dismissing the appeal of the defendant for its failure to pay in full the appellate court’s docket fee. The Court of Appeals certified this case to us for final determination for the reason that the question involved is one of law.

On July 18, 1962 the plaintiff instituted an action for damages against the defendant in the Justice of the Peace Court (now Municipal Court) of Mati, Davao. After trial, judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, ordering the latter to pay the former the sums of P1,036.49 as actual damages and P300.00 as attorney’s fees. Notice of the judgment was received by counsel for the defendant on October 25, 1962. The next day the defendant filed with the Justice of the Peace Court a notice of appeal to the Court of First Instance, with the appeal bond of P25.00 in the form of cash deposit with the Municipal Treasurer, and a postal money order for P12.00 payable to the Clerk of the Court of First Instance of Davao for the appellate court docket fee. The Justice of the Peace then transmitted the record of the case to the Clerk of the Court of First Instance, who acknowledged receipt thereof in a notice dated November 10, 1962.

Two days after the expiration of the fifteen day period within which to perfect the appeal the plaintiff moved to dismiss the same on the ground of failure to pay in full the docket fee which, in accordance with Rule 130, Section 5 of the Rules of Court (old) should be P32.00 instead of P12.00. In an order dated November 17, 1962 the Court a quo dismissed the appeal. Thereupon the defendant moved to reconsider, but was turned down in an order dated December 22, 1962.

The only issue here is whether or not the appeal to the Court of First Instance of Davao was perfected in accordance with Rule 40, Section 2 1 of the Rules of Court (old), notwithstanding the failure to pay in full the appellate court docket fee.

Appellant contends that the Court a quo should have allowed the appeal as there was substantial compliance with the Rules of Court, the deficiency in the amount paid for docket fee being a technical defect which could be cured. Appellant maintains that the rules on procedure should be construed liberally s as not to deprive it of the right to appeal on mere technicality. Moreover, it claims good faith and lack of intention to disregard the Rules and explains that the deficiency of P20.00 in the docket fee was due to an honest mistake in computation on the part of counsel, he being a new practitioner who was then appealing a civil case for the first time. It adds that counsel, upon realizing his mistake and without having been asked to do so by the clerk of the Court of First Instance, purchased a postal money order for P20.00 on November 16, 1962, with the intention of remitting the same to cover the shortage in the docket fee.

The rule is settled that, in case of appeals from inferior courts to the Courts of First Instance, the amount of the appellate court docket fee should be deposited in full within a period of fifteen days. Thus, if half only of the amount is deposited and the other half is tendered after the expiration of such period, the appeal is not deemed perfected. 2 True, in several instances this Court has relaxed the rule and then allowed the appeal in order to prevent a miscarriage of justice. For instance, where the appellants were from the very beginning ready and willing to pay the correct amount of docket fee and the failure to do so was caused by the mistake of either the clerk of the Court of First Instance 3 or the clerk of the justice of the peace court, 4 or of the justice of the peace and the municipal treasurer, 5 or of the municipal treasurer alone, 6 this Court held that it would be unjust to dismiss the appeal under the circumstances because:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Every citizen has the right to assume and trust that a public officer charged by law with certain duties knows his duties and performs them in accordance with law. To penalize such a citizen for relying upon said officer in all good faith is repugnant to justice."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the instant case, however, the failure of the appellant to pay the full amount of appellate court docket fee was due to the inexcusable negligence of Atty. Antonio Olmedo, its counsel in the Justice of the Peace Court, if not indeed to his ignorance of the Rules. The explanation that such failure was caused by an honest mistake of said counsel in the computation of the amount required is not credible. Under Rule 30, Section 5 of the Rules of Court (old), no computation was necessary. Besides, the amount of P12.00 which was actually paid was below the statutory minimum of P16.00. Evidently, said counsel did not refer to the Rules. The fact that he was a new practitioner did not justify his negligence. If anything, it should have made him more careful in the handling of his cases. Under the circumstances, the dismissal of the appeal does not constitute a reversible error.

WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against the Appellant.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Fernando and Capistrano, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. SEC. 2. Appeal, how perfected. — An appeal shall be perfected within fifteen days after notification to the party of the judgment complained of, (a) by filing with the justice of the peace or municipal judge a notice of appeal; (b) by delivering a certificate of the municipal treasurer showing that the appellant has deposited the appellate court docket fee, or, in chartered cities a certificate of the clerk of such court showing receipt of the said fee; and (c) by giving a bond.

2. Gambol and Burog v. Hon. Barcelona, Et Al., 106 Phil. 328, 330, citing the case of Lazaro v. Endencia, Et Al., 57 Phil 552.

3. Segovia v. Barrios, Et Al., 75 Phil 764.

4. Marasigan v. Palacio, 87 Phil. 839.

5. Gambol and Burog v. Hon. Barcelona, supra.

6. Amado Tagulao v. Judge Fortunata Padlanmundok, et al, G.R. No. L-15550, May 30, 1960; Barnido Et. Al. v. Balana, G.R. No. L-26275, July 26, 1966.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






November-1968 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-29612 November 15, 1968 - LUCIANO A. SAULOG v. CUSTOMBUILT MANUFACTURING CORP, ET AL..

  • A.C. No. 555 November 25, 1968 - ERNESTO M. NOMBRADO v. JUANITO T. HERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. L-22508 November 25, 1968 - FLORO BUENCONSEJO v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET., AL

  • G.R. No. L-21757 November 26, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. KASILA SANGARAN

  • G.R. No. L-25858 November 26, 1968 - LU MING, ET., AL. v. VICENTE LOPEZ, ET., AL

  • G.R. No. L-25972 November 26, 1968 - LEONARDO C. GUTIERREZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET., AL

  • A.C. No. 217 November 27, 1968 - NIEVES RILLAS VDA. DE BARRERA v. CASIANO U. LAPUT

  • G.R. No. 20014 November 27, 1968 - FRANCISCO CRISOLOGO, ET., AL. v. ISAAC CENTENO, ET., AL

  • G.R. No. L-20075 November 27, 1968 - SOUTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY v. CENON LAURENTE

  • G.R. No. L-21545 November 27, 1968 - EUFEMIA RIVERA v. MARIA CONCEPCION PAEZ VDA. DE CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-22240 November 27, 1968 - SANTIAGO BALMONTE v. JULIAN MARCELO, ET., AL

  • G.R. No. L-22705 November 27, 1968 - ANTHONY CHAN v. OCEANIC WIRELESS NETWORK, INC.,

  • G.R. No. L-22717 November 27, 1968 - GEMINIANO L. GONZALES v. SATURNINA GONZALES, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25609 November 27, 1968 - MARGARET ANN WAINRIGHT VERSOZA, ET., AL. v. JOSE MA. VERSOZA

  • G.R. No. L-26461 November 27, 1968 - ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION v. JOSE C. BORROMEO, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26341 November 27, 1968 - ILOILO DOCK & ENGINEERING CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-23345 November 27, 1968 - DIONISIO ABENAZA, ET., AL v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-24624 November 27, 1968 - SINFOROSA ALCA v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-25372 November 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SENCIO GUTIERREZ, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29658 November 29, 1968 - ENRIQUE V. MORALES v. ABELARDO SUBIDO

  • G.R. No. L-23967 November 29, 1968 - ANTONINO M. MILANES v. EULOGIO F. DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. L-20390 November 29, 1968 - RAUL R. INGLES, ET., AL. v. AMELITO R. MUTUC, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23276 November 29, 1968 - MELECIO COQUIA, ET., AL. v. FIELDMEN’S INSURANCE CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-19143 November 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTOS RAMOS, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19196 November 29, 1968 - ANGEL VILLARICA, ET., AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET., AL

  • G.R. No. L-20121 November 29, 1968 - ALFREDO APAO, ET., AL. v. TITO V. TIZON, ET., AL

  • G.R. No. L-21725 November 29, 1968 - AURELIO ARCILLAS v. GREGORIO D. MONTEJO, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20768 November 29, 1968 - ELISEO B. LEMI v. BRIGIDO VALENCIA

  • G.R. No. L-22377 November 29, 1968 - MUNICIPALITY (now CITY) OF LEGASPI v. A.L. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-22243 November 29, 1968 - RILECO, INC., v. MINDANAO CONGRESS OF LABOR-RAMIE UNITED FARM WORKERS’ ASSOCIATION

  • G.R. No. L-22802 November 29, 1968 - MAXIMO H. GREGORIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23072 November 29, 1968 - SIMEON B. MIGUEL, ET AL., v. FLORENDO CATALINO

  • G.R. No. L-23145 November 29, 1968 - RENATO D. TAYAG v. BENGUET CONSOLIDATED, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-23428 November 29, 1968 - DETECTIVE & PROTECTIVE BUREAU, INC. v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL

  • G.R. No. L-23971 November 29, 1968 - ASSOCIATED INSURANCE& SURETY CO., INC., v. ANTONIO BANZON, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24019 November 29, 1968 - PHILIPPINE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION, ET., AL. v. MLQSEA FACULTY ASSOCIATION, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24963 November 29, 1968 - G. LINER v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-2509 November 29, 1968 - NILDA SURA v. VICENTE SILVESTRE MARTIN, SR.

  • G.R. No. L-25589 November 29, 1968 - CITY OF LECAZPI v. ROBERTO ZURBANO

  • G.R. No. L-25677 November 29, 1968 - JOVITO O. VITANZO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-26082 November 29, 1968 - NORBERTO DE LA REA v. ABELARDO SUBIDO

  • G.R. No. L-27145 November 29, 1968 - MARIQUITA LUNA v. GERONIMO CARANDANG

  • G.R. No. L-27511 November 29, 1968 - SIMON LUNA v. LORENZO M. PLAZA

  • G.R. No. L-27852 November 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDDIE BUENBRAZO

  • G.R. No. L-29696 November 29, 1968 - JESUS GIGANTE v. REPUBLIC SAVINGS BANK, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29766 November 29, 1968 - PERMANENT CONCRETE PRODUCTS, INC. v. DONATO TEODORO

  • G.R. No. L-20352 November 29, 1968 - LILIA YUSAY GONZALEZ v. HON. WENCESLAO L. FERNAN, ET., AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-18660 & L-18661 November 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE ALTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21362 November 29, 1968 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHIL. v. LOURDES GASPAR BAUTISTA