ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 137702. May 17, 1999]

MAGATAS, et al. vs. CA, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAY 17 1999.

G.R. No. 137702 (Gregorio Magatas and Remedios Magatas Altura vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals, The Hon. Joven F. Costales, Judge RTC, Br. 45, Urdaneta City and Rosenda Soriano.)

Petitioners assails the resolution of the Court of Appeals denying their motion for reconsideration thus holding that the appellate court's resolution dated February 6, 1997 has become final and executory, and that respondent court may no longer set aside the entry of judgement.

The Court of Appeals had earlier dismissed petitioners' appeal in a resolution dated February 6, 1997 on the ground that petitioners failed to pay the necessary docket fees within the reglementary period pursuant to Section 1(d), Rule 50 of the Rules of Court. The dismissed resolution became final and hence, judgement was entered on October 28, 1997.

Thereafter, the petitioners filed an omnibus motion to set aside the entry of judgement and to reinstate the appeal but the motion was denied on January 8, 1999.

A subsequent motion for reconsideration having failed, petitioners resorted to the instant petition which we find unavailing.

A perusal of the record reveals that on August 20, 1995, a notice to pay the docketing and other fees was sent to petitioners' counsel by registered mail and the same was duly received as shown by the registry return cards. However, no payment was made. Hence, the dismissal of the appeal is clearly proper.

Petitioners claim that they were not informed by their counsel regarding the payment of the docket fees. The Court cannot consider this excuse as valid for verily, it has been held that a client is bound by his counsel mistakes and negligence (Casolita, Sr, vs. Court of Appeals, 275 SCRA 257 [1997]). Failure to comply with the requirement for the timely payment of the appeal fees renders the decision final for appeal is only a statutory privilege, and, therefore, it may only be exercised in the manner provided by law (Luna vs. NLRC, 270 SCRA 227 [1997]).

WHEREFORE, petition is denied due course.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE