ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 135612.December 13, 2000]

SPS. ALCANTARA vs. CA, et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated DEC 13 2000.

G.R. No. 135612 (Spouses Ricardo and Teresita Alcantara v. The Court of Appeals, Giovani Dies tro and Jaime Alcantara represented by Romulo Alcantara, and Carlita Marcantonio.)

Spouses Ricardo and Teresita Alcantara are the defendant-appellants in CA-G.R. CV No. 56037, "Giovani Diestro and Jaime Alcantara represented by Romulo Alcantara vs. Carlita Marcantonio."

On 29 July 1997, upon receipt of a notice to pay the appellate docket fees, petitioners through counsel Atty. Julian Yap allegedly paid the amount of P420.00 to the cashier of respondent Court of Appeals for which Official Receipts Nos. 5025591 for P352.00, 6791760 for P48.00 and 9039083 for P20.00, all payable to the Court of Appeals, although in the notice to pay, both plaintiff-appellants Giovani Diestro and Jaime Alcantara and defendant-appellants Ricardo and Teresita Alcantara were required to pay P420.00 each for their separate appeals. The receipts, although all in the name of Atty. Rafael Mateo who represented plaintiff-appellants Giovani Diestro and Jaime Alcantara, were apparently issued by three (3) different persons as shown by the different signatures or initials on the three (3) receipts. Attorney Yap however claimed that he failed to notice that the official receipts handed to his clerk who actually made the payments were made out to Atty. Rafael Mateo for plaintiff-appellants Giovani Diestro and Jaime Alcantara, instead of to Atty. Yap.

On 20 February 1998 respondent Carlita Marcantonib, defendant-appellee in the Court of Appeals, moved through counsel to dismiss the appeal on the ground that since 18 March 1997 no docket fee had been paid. On 16 March 1998 respondent Court of Appeals promulgated the questioned Resolution dismissing the appeal of petitioner-spouses Ricardo and Teresita Alcantara.

On 1 April 1998 petitioners moved for reconsideration, which was however denied by respondent Court of Appeals on 13 August 1998. The Court of Appeals noted that nine (9) months had passed from the time the docket fees were paid and petitioners explained the "erroneous" issuance of receipts only when their appeal was dismissed; further, that "(t)he ground adduced in the Motion for Reconsideration is hard of belief and to accept it will be espousing a very dangerous and critical precedent exposing cases of similar situation to a mockery at the hands of unscrupulous parties."

Petitioners filed the instant Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with Prayer for Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and to nullify and set aside the disputed Resolutions of respondent Court of Appeals as well as to reinstate their appeal. The Alcantara spouses stressed that the Motion to Dismiss Appeal filed by Marcantonio already bore the appellate docket number which, according to them, was a clear indication that the docket fees must have already been paid. However, the records clearly show that they did not pay the appellate docketing fees nor were there receipts issued to them. Moreover, the explanation of respondents Giovani Diestro and Jaime Alcantara contained in their comment of 22 December 1998 is not worthy of belief. According to them, the cashier of respondent Court of Appeals refused to accept their payments because the records showed that the fees had already been paid; thus they assumed that the payments made by the spouses Alcantara included and covered their own appeal.

This is hardly credible. It goes against human nature and the adversarial character of court proceedings for a party to pay for and help sustain the appeal of the opposing party, much as it is improbable that the party aided would simply accept the assistance extended by the opposing party.

Further, an examination of the disputed receipts shows that all three (3) were prepared by different hands. It is more logical to presume that the three (3) clerks who prepared the receipts correctly issued the receipts in the name of Atty. Rafael Mateo rather than believe that three (3) individuals committed the same error.

Spouses Ricardo and Teresita Alcantara allege that the Court of Appeals should have first inquired from them if they had already paid the docket fees instead of dismissing their appeal outright. Unfortunately, this is not the rule. The Rules of Court expressly provides the requirements for perfecting an appeal, and lawyers are expected to be familiar with them. The Court of Appeals, with its heavy case load and its responsibility to resolve cases judiciously and expeditiously should not be expected to remind every petitioner or his counsel of his responsibilities whenever he is remiss. This falls within the lawyer's sphere of responsibility.

Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that "[a] lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable." Thus, regardless of whether the failure to pay the appellate docketing fees was due to an honest mistake, an argument which does not persuade the Court, or actual negligence by the parties to pay the measly sum of P420.00, the consequence would be the same.

WHEREFORE, finding no grave abuse of discretion committed by respondent Court of Appeals in dismissing the appeal of petitioners, the instant petition is DISMISSED.

����������� SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA MAGAY-DRIS

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE