February 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > February 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 184772 : February 08, 2010] RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORP. AND JOSELITO V. CORCINO, JR. V. LUIS LOKIN, JR.:
[G.R. No. 184772 : February 08, 2010]
RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORP. AND JOSELITO V. CORCINO, JR. V. LUIS LOKIN, JR.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 08 February 2010:
G.R. No. 184772 (Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. and Joselito V. Corcino, Jr. v. Luis Lokin, Jr.).-
This case is about a claim that the inadvertence of a law firm's staff in failing to pay the appellate docket fees in a case should be considered as an exceptionally meritorious reason for relaxing the rules requiring the timely payment of such fees.
The Facts and the Case
In June 1996 respondent Luis K. Lokin, Jr. bought a Mitshubishi Pajero from Union Motors Corporation for P1,470,000.00. He made a down payment of P441,000.00, P100,000.00 of which was for the payment of insurance premium. Lokin executed a promissory note for the balance of P1,029,000.00 that petitioner Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC) paid through car financing arrangement to Union Motors, which company in turn assigned the promissory note to RCBC. The Pajero was then insured with Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. (Malayan) for P1,200,000.00.
On January 22, 1997 the Pajero was camapped and never recovered. Consequently, Malayan paid petitioner RCBC the insurance proceeds of P1,188,000.00. Upon respondent Lokin's request for reimbursement of the difference between his obligation to RCBC at the time of the loss of the Pajero and the insurance proceeds, the bank paid him P153,197.35.
Claiming that he was entitled to a reimbursement of P350,000.00, respondent Lokin filed an action for damages[1] against petitioner RCBC and Malayan before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 62 in Civil Case 99-981. In their answers, Malayan alleged lack of cause of action while RCBC insisted that the P153,197.35 it paid to Lokin was the correct amount of reimbursement computed on the basis of the sum of light years digit method agreed upon in the promissory note.
On March 26, 2002 the RTC dismissed the complaint, upholding petitioner RCBC's contention that the sum of light years digit method should be the basis for computing the reimbursement.[2] Respondent Lokin filed a motion for reconsideration but the RTC denied it in its August 27, 2002 order.
Respondent Lokin received a copy of the last order, through counsel, on August 12, 2003. Consequently, he had until August 27, 2003 within which to perfect his appeal. On August 18, 2003 he filed a notice of appeal but the RTC subsequently denied the appeal for non-payment of the required docket fees.[3] On September 1, 2003 Lokin paid such fees and filed a motion for reconsideration that the RTC granted, holding that he had substantially complied with the rules.[4]
On May 30, 2008 the Court of Appeals (CA) ruled that respondent Lokin satisfactorily explained the delayed payment of the docket fees. Further, it ruled that he was entitled to P119,031.71 in additional reimbursement plus interest out of the insurance proceeds.[5] On September 30, 2008 the CA denied petitioner RCBC's motion for reconsideration, prompting it to come to this Court on petition for review.
Threshold Issue
The threshold issue presented before the CA and raised before this Court is whether or not the CA erred in giving due course to respondent Lokin's appeal notwithstanding his late payment of the docket fees.
The Court's Ruling
Appellate court docket and other lawful fees must be paid within the period for taking an appeal. The rule is stated in Section 4, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, which reads:
The consistent rule is that payment of docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory for the perfection of the appeal. Without such payment, the appellate court does not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action. More, the decision from which appeal is sought becomes final and executory. While there are exceptions to this rule, a common thread in those cases is that there must be an exceptionally meritorious reason for the failure to pay the appellate docket fees on time.
Among these reasons are those cited in Fil-Estate Properties, Inc. v. Homena-Valencia,[6] thus:
In the present case, respondent Lokin claimed that "due to simple inadvertence the appellate docket fees were not paid at that time (when notice of appeal was filed on August 18, 2003) by the staff of the law firm" and that on September 1, 2003, he "took immediate corrective action when (he) realized that the appellate docket fees were inadvertently not paid."[7]
But this Court held in Fil-Estate Properties, Inc. v. Homena-Valencia[8] and Ilusorio v. Ilusorio-Yap[9] that inadvertence cannot be considered as an exceptionally meritorious reason for relaxing the rule requiring payment of the docket fees on time. To hold otherwise in this case would be to set an ignoble precedent of glossing over a jurisdictional requirement upon a mere claim of inadvertence of counsel or a staff of his law firm.
Respondent Lokin's failure to perfect his appeal within the period fixed by law rendered final the challenged decision and no court could exercise appellate jurisdiction to review it.
WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition, REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the Court of Appeals' decision dated May 30, 2008 and resolution dated September 30, 2008, and REINSTATES the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 62 dated March 26, 2002 in Civil Case 99-981.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Arturo D. Bnon, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad and Jose P. Perez, Members, Second Division, this 8th day of February, 2010.
G.R. No. 184772 (Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. and Joselito V. Corcino, Jr. v. Luis Lokin, Jr.).-
This case is about a claim that the inadvertence of a law firm's staff in failing to pay the appellate docket fees in a case should be considered as an exceptionally meritorious reason for relaxing the rules requiring the timely payment of such fees.
In June 1996 respondent Luis K. Lokin, Jr. bought a Mitshubishi Pajero from Union Motors Corporation for P1,470,000.00. He made a down payment of P441,000.00, P100,000.00 of which was for the payment of insurance premium. Lokin executed a promissory note for the balance of P1,029,000.00 that petitioner Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC) paid through car financing arrangement to Union Motors, which company in turn assigned the promissory note to RCBC. The Pajero was then insured with Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. (Malayan) for P1,200,000.00.
On January 22, 1997 the Pajero was camapped and never recovered. Consequently, Malayan paid petitioner RCBC the insurance proceeds of P1,188,000.00. Upon respondent Lokin's request for reimbursement of the difference between his obligation to RCBC at the time of the loss of the Pajero and the insurance proceeds, the bank paid him P153,197.35.
Claiming that he was entitled to a reimbursement of P350,000.00, respondent Lokin filed an action for damages[1] against petitioner RCBC and Malayan before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 62 in Civil Case 99-981. In their answers, Malayan alleged lack of cause of action while RCBC insisted that the P153,197.35 it paid to Lokin was the correct amount of reimbursement computed on the basis of the sum of light years digit method agreed upon in the promissory note.
On March 26, 2002 the RTC dismissed the complaint, upholding petitioner RCBC's contention that the sum of light years digit method should be the basis for computing the reimbursement.[2] Respondent Lokin filed a motion for reconsideration but the RTC denied it in its August 27, 2002 order.
Respondent Lokin received a copy of the last order, through counsel, on August 12, 2003. Consequently, he had until August 27, 2003 within which to perfect his appeal. On August 18, 2003 he filed a notice of appeal but the RTC subsequently denied the appeal for non-payment of the required docket fees.[3] On September 1, 2003 Lokin paid such fees and filed a motion for reconsideration that the RTC granted, holding that he had substantially complied with the rules.[4]
On May 30, 2008 the Court of Appeals (CA) ruled that respondent Lokin satisfactorily explained the delayed payment of the docket fees. Further, it ruled that he was entitled to P119,031.71 in additional reimbursement plus interest out of the insurance proceeds.[5] On September 30, 2008 the CA denied petitioner RCBC's motion for reconsideration, prompting it to come to this Court on petition for review.
The threshold issue presented before the CA and raised before this Court is whether or not the CA erred in giving due course to respondent Lokin's appeal notwithstanding his late payment of the docket fees.
Appellate court docket and other lawful fees must be paid within the period for taking an appeal. The rule is stated in Section 4, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, which reads:
SEC. 4. Appellate court docket and other lawful fees. - Within the period for taking an appeal, the appellant shall pay to the clerk of the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from, the full amount of the appellate court docket and other lawful fees. Proof of payment of said fees shall be transmitted to the appellate court together with the original record or the record on appeal.
The consistent rule is that payment of docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory for the perfection of the appeal. Without such payment, the appellate court does not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action. More, the decision from which appeal is sought becomes final and executory. While there are exceptions to this rule, a common thread in those cases is that there must be an exceptionally meritorious reason for the failure to pay the appellate docket fees on time.
Among these reasons are those cited in Fil-Estate Properties, Inc. v. Homena-Valencia,[6] thus:
In MCXAA, Alfonso and Villamor, the notices of appeal were filed therein less than a month after the effectivity of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which had instituted appellate docket fees in lieu of the old appeal bond. Hence, the appropriate finding then that "the changes introduced by the 1997 Rules of Civil procedure were yet novel, and even judges and lawyers needed time to familiarize themselves with the rules' intricacies." In Yambao, the non-payment of the full docket fees was caused by the erroneous assessment thereof by the RTC Clerk of Court, whereas in Buenaflor, the postal money orders used to pay the docket fees were erroneously addressed to the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals.
In the present case, respondent Lokin claimed that "due to simple inadvertence the appellate docket fees were not paid at that time (when notice of appeal was filed on August 18, 2003) by the staff of the law firm" and that on September 1, 2003, he "took immediate corrective action when (he) realized that the appellate docket fees were inadvertently not paid."[7]
But this Court held in Fil-Estate Properties, Inc. v. Homena-Valencia[8] and Ilusorio v. Ilusorio-Yap[9] that inadvertence cannot be considered as an exceptionally meritorious reason for relaxing the rule requiring payment of the docket fees on time. To hold otherwise in this case would be to set an ignoble precedent of glossing over a jurisdictional requirement upon a mere claim of inadvertence of counsel or a staff of his law firm.
Respondent Lokin's failure to perfect his appeal within the period fixed by law rendered final the challenged decision and no court could exercise appellate jurisdiction to review it.
WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition, REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the Court of Appeals' decision dated May 30, 2008 and resolution dated September 30, 2008, and REINSTATES the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 62 dated March 26, 2002 in Civil Case 99-981.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Arturo D. Bnon, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad and Jose P. Perez, Members, Second Division, this 8th day of February, 2010.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Docketed as Civil Case 99-981.
[2] Rollo, p. 126.
[3] Id. at 159.
[4] Id. at 171.
[5] CA-G.R.CV 81254, id. at 56.
[6] CR.No. 173942, October 15, 2007, 536 SCRA 252, 263-264.
[7] CA Decision, rollo, p. 12
[8] Supra note 6.
[9] G.R. No. 171656, March 17, 2009.
