June 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > June 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 157599 : June 23, 2010] SHEILA T. BONES, PETITIONER V. MINIANO DE LA CRUZ, RESPONDENT. :
[G.R. No. 157599 : June 23, 2010]
SHEILA T. BONES, PETITIONER V. MINIANO DE LA CRUZ, RESPONDENT.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated 23 June 2010, which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 157599 - SHEILA T. BONES, Petitioner v. MINIANO DE LA CRUZ, Respondent. - The petitioner seeks the review of the decision dated May 20, 2002 (dismissing her appeal) promulgated by the Court of Appeals (CA), and the subsequent resolution (denying her motion for reconsideration).
The petitioner sued respondent Miniano De la Cruz and his wife (De la Cruz spouses) for specific performance and damages in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Antipolo City concerning the failure of the De la Cruz spouses to sign the deed of absolute sale covering the purchase of the petitioner from them of a house and the lot with an area of 169 square meters, and their failure despite demand to pay the capital gains tax pursuant to their contract to sell. The De la Cruz spouses interposed the defense that the petitioner had incurred in delay in paying the P1,000,000.00 balance, because she did not pay it in accordance with their contract to sell within five days from June 27, 1996, the date when they sent a letter to inform her that the title to the 501-square meter lot had already been issued in their name, with an approved survey plan indicating that the 501-square meter lot had been subdivided into three, thereby segregating the petitioner's 169-square meter lot. They further averred that although they were liable for the capital gains tax, the petitioner should bear the amount of such tax as penalty for her late payment of her balance of the purchase price.
On November 10, 2000, the RTC decided in favor of the De la Cruz spouses, holding that the agreement of the parties in their contract to sell was clear and needed no interpretation, and decreed that the petitioner should pay P100,000.00, as penalty, plus continuing penalty and interest, and P20,000.00 as and for moral and exemplary damages.[1]
After receiving the RTC's denial of her motion for reconsideration on February 27, 2001, the petitioner interposed an appeal to the CA on March 1, 2001 by filing a notice of appeal in the RTC. However, she did not pay the appellate court docket fee.
The CA dismissed her appeal through the assailed decision dated May 20, 2002, and, later on, denied her motion for reconsideration.[2]
Hence, this recourse.
The issues raised are the following:
Considering that the requirement for the payment has been explicitly set forth since July 1, 1997 in Section 4, Rule 41, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,[3] the petitioner's contention that the non-payment might be excused for being due to an honest mistake, that is, the messenger who had filed her notice of appeal had not been required to pay the appellate court docket fee, was plainly implausible.
Moreover, the petitioner paid the appellate court docket fees only on June 14, 2002,[4] more than a year from the time she filed her notice of appeal on March 1, 2001. Without the seasonable payment by the petitioner, her appeal was not perfected, because, as ruled in Cu-Unjieng v. Court of Appeals,[5] the payment of the appellate court docket fee within the reglementary period as required by Section 4, Rule 41, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is both mandatory and jurisdictional. Accordingly, the non-compliance with the requirement was fatal to the petitioner's appeal, and was properly a ground to dismiss the appeal pursuant to Section 1 (c), Rule 50, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
The petitioner's urging that the requirement be relaxed is even unacceptable. The Rules of Court may be relaxed only for persuasive and weighty reasons in order to relieve a litigant of an injustice commensurate with her failure to comply with the prescribed procedure. No such reasons were brought to our attention by the petitioner.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is denied due course.
G.R. No. 157599 - SHEILA T. BONES, Petitioner v. MINIANO DE LA CRUZ, Respondent. - The petitioner seeks the review of the decision dated May 20, 2002 (dismissing her appeal) promulgated by the Court of Appeals (CA), and the subsequent resolution (denying her motion for reconsideration).
The petitioner sued respondent Miniano De la Cruz and his wife (De la Cruz spouses) for specific performance and damages in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Antipolo City concerning the failure of the De la Cruz spouses to sign the deed of absolute sale covering the purchase of the petitioner from them of a house and the lot with an area of 169 square meters, and their failure despite demand to pay the capital gains tax pursuant to their contract to sell. The De la Cruz spouses interposed the defense that the petitioner had incurred in delay in paying the P1,000,000.00 balance, because she did not pay it in accordance with their contract to sell within five days from June 27, 1996, the date when they sent a letter to inform her that the title to the 501-square meter lot had already been issued in their name, with an approved survey plan indicating that the 501-square meter lot had been subdivided into three, thereby segregating the petitioner's 169-square meter lot. They further averred that although they were liable for the capital gains tax, the petitioner should bear the amount of such tax as penalty for her late payment of her balance of the purchase price.
On November 10, 2000, the RTC decided in favor of the De la Cruz spouses, holding that the agreement of the parties in their contract to sell was clear and needed no interpretation, and decreed that the petitioner should pay P100,000.00, as penalty, plus continuing penalty and interest, and P20,000.00 as and for moral and exemplary damages.[1]
After receiving the RTC's denial of her motion for reconsideration on February 27, 2001, the petitioner interposed an appeal to the CA on March 1, 2001 by filing a notice of appeal in the RTC. However, she did not pay the appellate court docket fee.
The CA dismissed her appeal through the assailed decision dated May 20, 2002, and, later on, denied her motion for reconsideration.[2]
Hence, this recourse.
The issues raised are the following:
- Whether or not the CA acted correctly in dismissing the appeal, considering that the non-payment of the appellate court docket fee was due to an honest mistake;
- Whether or not the petitioner had valid and meritorious grounds for the appeal, which wan-anted the reversal of the RTC decision.
Considering that the requirement for the payment has been explicitly set forth since July 1, 1997 in Section 4, Rule 41, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,[3] the petitioner's contention that the non-payment might be excused for being due to an honest mistake, that is, the messenger who had filed her notice of appeal had not been required to pay the appellate court docket fee, was plainly implausible.
Moreover, the petitioner paid the appellate court docket fees only on June 14, 2002,[4] more than a year from the time she filed her notice of appeal on March 1, 2001. Without the seasonable payment by the petitioner, her appeal was not perfected, because, as ruled in Cu-Unjieng v. Court of Appeals,[5] the payment of the appellate court docket fee within the reglementary period as required by Section 4, Rule 41, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is both mandatory and jurisdictional. Accordingly, the non-compliance with the requirement was fatal to the petitioner's appeal, and was properly a ground to dismiss the appeal pursuant to Section 1 (c), Rule 50, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
The petitioner's urging that the requirement be relaxed is even unacceptable. The Rules of Court may be relaxed only for persuasive and weighty reasons in order to relieve a litigant of an injustice commensurate with her failure to comply with the prescribed procedure. No such reasons were brought to our attention by the petitioner.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is denied due course.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo p. 58.
[2] Rollo p. 35.
[3] Section 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.
[4] Rollo pp. 36 - 37, per petitioner's motion for reconsideration and to admit late payment of appeal docket fee.
[5] G. R. No. 139596, January 24, 2006, 479 SCRA 594, 602.
