THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 167620. April 3, 2007.]

CAROLINA B. VILLENA, petitioner, vs. ROMEO Z. RUPISAN and

RODOLFO Z. RUPISAN, respondents.

DECISION

CHICO-NAZARIO, J : p

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure assailing the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP
No. 79405 dated 10 November 2004 granting the petition of the herein
respondents Romeo and Rodolfo Rupisan and the Resolution 2 dated 1 April
2005 denying the Motion for Reconsideration filed by herein petitioner Carolina
B. Villena.

The factual antecedents are:

The late Nicomedes T. Rupisan was first married to Felicidad Zamora.
Their union bore five children namely: Consuelo, Erlinda, Alejandro, Rodolfo,
and Romeo. Rodolfo and Romeo are the respondents in this petition. Upon the
death of Felicidad in 1949, 3 Nicomedes married Maria Rosario de Castro (Maria
Rosario) on 14 October 1964. The couple did not have any children. During the
marriage of Nicomedes and Maria Rosario, they acquired certain properties
including those hereinbelow described: TDAcCa

A parcel of land (Lot 3 of subdivision plan (LRC) Psd-180944,

being a portion of Lot 3-A-2-B (LRC) Psd-140722, LRC Record No.
19405), situated in Poblacion, Municipality of Alcala, Province of
Pangasinan, Island of Luzon. Bounded on the NE., points 1 to 2 by Lot 2
of the subdivision plan, and points 3 to 4 by property of the Heirs of
Luis Soriano; on the SE., points 4 to 5 by property of the Heirs of Luis
Soriano, and points 5 to 6 by property of Andres Dumpao; on the SW,
points 6 to 7 Lot 3-B (LRC) Psd-54161; and on the NW., points 7 to 1 by
Burgos street, 15.00 M. wide, and points 2 to 3 by Lot 2 of the
subdivision plan. Containing an AREA OF ONE THOUSAND FOUR
HUNDRED NINETY TWO (1,492) Square Meters, more or less. Its
technical description appears on TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE No.
101871 — Register of Deeds for Pangasinan. Its assessed value is
P9,600.00 as per Tax Dec. No. 6599 of Alcala. 4
(a) A parcel of residential land (Lot 1, Plan Psu-79891), situated in
Poblacion, Alaminos, Pangasinan, containing an area of two
hundred ninety-two (292) square meters and covered by TCT No.
1037 of the Register of Deeds of Pangasinan, issued to the
names of Nicomedes and Ma. Rosario.

(b) A parcel of land (Lot 3, Plan Psu-79891) situated in Poblacion,

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 Alaminos, Pangasinan, containing an area of sixteen (16) square
meters and covered by TCT No. 1037 of the Register of Deeds of
Pangasinan. 5DAESTI

As to the above properties, Nicomedes and Maria Rosario apparently

executed an Agreement on Separation of Conjugal Properties 6 which reads:
I. MAIN MOTIVE OF THE AGREEMENT. Because of the absence of
descendant, WE the undersigned spouses have adopted this
AGREEMENT, in order to provide a Guidance and to prevent any
possible misunderstanding and litigation between the surviving Spouse
and the Heirs and successors of the predeceased Spouse. WE HOPE
that the Courts of Justice will give legal value to these Agreements.
xxx xxx xxx

V. The parcel of land in No. 2 SECTION A, including the House of

strong materials built thereon and all Furnitures to be found therein,
will belong exclusively to the Husband. TAIESD

VI. The parcels of lands (Lot No. 1 and Lot No. 3) in SECTION B,
including the House of strong materials built thereon and all Furnitures
to be found therein, will belong exclusively to the Wife. 7

On 22 June 1981, Maria Rosario caused the annotation and registration of

the said agreement on Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 1037.
On 20 March 1984, Nicomedes died intestate. 8 On 18 May 1984, Maria
Rosario executed an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication adjudicating to herself alone
the subject properties covered by TCT No. 1037. 9 Maria Rosario then caused
the cancellation of TCT No. 1037 and a new one, TCT No. 8177, issued in her
name. Similarly, she caused the cancellation of tax declaration covering the
subject properties.
On 24 April 1992, Maria Rosario died at the age of 83 years old 10
allegedly leaving behind a holographic will dated 3 October 1989 11 wherein she
devised the properties under TCT No. 8177 to her niece, petitioner Carolina
Villena. Petitioner immediately took possession of the properties. ETaHCD

Respondents Romeo and Rodolfo Rupisan, sons by the first marriage of

Nicomedes, filed Civil Case No. A-2106 for Partition, Annulment of
title/documents and/or Recovery of possession/ownership and damages. 12 On
the other hand, petitioner filed Special Proceedings No. A-1278 for the probate
of the will of Maria Rosario in her capacity as devisee of the deceased, Maria
Rosario. 13 Both cases were filed before the Regional Trial Court of Alaminos,
City Pangasinan, Branch 54. The cases were consolidated on 18 November
1999.
On 25 September 2002, a Decision on the consolidated cases, was
rendered, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, JUDGMENT is hereby
rendered as follows:

1. Allowing and granting the probate of the Holographic Will of

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 Maria Rosario Braganza De Castro Rupisan (Spl. Proc. Case No. A-
1278) and a certificate of its allowance to be attached to the
Holographic Will is accordingly hereby issued, attested by the
seal of this Court, pursuant to and in consideration with Section
13, Rule 76 of the Rules of Court and which must be duly
recorded with the Office of the Clerk of Court, as well as in the
Office of the Registry of Deeds, Alaminos, Pangasinan; aAHDIc

2. Dismissing the Complaint in Civil Case No. A-2106 for utter lack
of merit, and

3. Ordering plaintiffs in Civil Case No. A-2106 to jointly and

solidarily pay defendant moral damages in the sum of TWO
HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P200,000.00); the reduced sum of
exemplary damages in the amount of SEVENTY THOUSAND
PESOS (P70,000.00), including attorney's fees and costs of
litigation in the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00). 14

Respondents, through counsel Atty. Jose Antonio M. Guillermo (Atty.

Guillermo), filed a Notice of Appeal dated 5 October 2002. 15
On 22 November 2002 the RTC issued an Order denying respondent's
appeal in Civil Case No. A-2106 due to late payment of appellate docket fees 16
but allowed the appeal in Special Proceeding No. A-1278, subject to certain
conditions. 17 The RTC held: aCHDST

To emphasize the point, if it is true indeed that the plaintiff

received through counsel on October 2, 2002, the Decision of this
Honorable Court, then he has (sic) up to October 17, 2002 within which
to perfect the appeal in Civil Case No. 2106 which is the timely filing of
the Notice of Appeal, together with the payment to the Clerk of Court of
the full amount of the appellate court docket and other lawful fees.

xxx xxx xxx

However, with respect to Special Proceeding Case No. 1278,

considering that Rule 141 Sec. 3 of the Revised Rules of Court provides
that: "where a record on appeal is required, the appellant shall file a
notice of appeal and a record on appeal within thirty days from notice
of judgment or final order" and in which case therefore, with respect to
Special Proceeding Case No. A-1278, the Notice of Appeal is deemed
perfected except for the approval of the Record on Appeal. AcTDaH

WHEREFORE, Civil Case No. A-2106, not having been perfected

within the time provided for by law in accordance with Rule 41, Sec. 4
of the Revised Rules of Court, the said appeal is DENIED for lack of
merit. 18

Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order dated 22

November 2002 insofar as it dismissed their appeal in Civil Case No. A-2106.
Acting on this motion, the trial court in an Order dated 16 July 2003 dismissed
both appeals including that in Special Proceedings No. A-1278. The Court ruled
that inasmuch as respondents' counsel of record, Atty. Guillermo, already filed
his Withdrawal of Appearance on 4 October 2002, the Notice of Appeal filed on
5 October 2002, signed by said counsel, was invalid and no longer bound his
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 clients, respondents therein. The RTC ratiocinated:
During the January 20, 2003 hearing which are for purposes of
approval of the record on appeal and to determine whether such record
on appeal filed by the oppositor in Special Proceeding Case No. A-1278
is in order and whether or not the other matters treated in the
Opposition to the Motion for Approval of the Record on Appeal filed by
petitioner are impressed with merit, the following facts surfaced, to wit:
1. That on October 4, 2002, as shown by the date of the
pleading entitled "Withdrawal of Appearance" filed by Atty.
Jose Antonio M. Guillermo and which contained the
conformity of no less than the oppositor himself, Romeo
Rupisan, the said counsel, Jose Antonio M. Guillermo,
stated as follows: "the undersigned attorney upon the
request and conformity of plaintiff/oppositor respectfully
withdraws his appearance as counsel for
plaintiffs/oppositor in the above-entitled cases" and prayed
that his Withdrawal of Appearance be noted by this Court;
DCcTHa

2. The aforesaid pleading was received and docketed in this

court on November 12, 2002;
3. However, notwithstanding the aforesaid withdrawal, the
aforesaid counsel, Atty. Jose M. Guillermo, submitted and
filed with this Court, without the conformity of oppositor,
Romeo Rupisan, a "Notice of Appeal" dated October 5,
2002 in the above-consolidated cases and which was
received by this Court on October 9, 2002;

4. In the meantime, on November 8, 2002, this Court is in

receipt of a "Motion for Approval of Record on Appeal" filed
by Seguion Reyna Montecillo and Ongsiako, which motion
is dated October 29, 2002;
5. Subsequently on November 11, 2002 (the same date of
receipt by this court of Atty. Guillermo's Withdrawal of
Appearance), this Court received the "notice of
Appearance" dated November 5, 2002 of Seguion Reyna
Montecillo and Ongsiako, as counsel for the
plaintiffs/oppositor in the above-captioned cases;TIcAaH

6. Thereafter, on November 12, 2002, Atty. Jose M. Guillermo,

filed with this court an "Opposition" dated November 12,
2002, to defendant/petitioner's Motion to Dismiss Appeal,
alleging among others as follows: (a) that he is still the
counsel of record for plaintiffs/oppositor in the above-
captioned cases inasmuch as his Withdrawal of Appearance
has not yet been acted upon by this court and considering
that to his own knowledge, no new counsel has yet entered
its appearance for plaintiffs/oppositor in the above-
captioned cases; (b) That a record on appeal is not
required in the instant case.

xxx xxx xxx

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 Verily, this Court has not acted on Atty. Guillermo's Withdrawal of
Appearance dated October 4, 2002 and received by this court on
November 12, 2002 considering that same is not a motion and he
prayed that his Withdrawal of Appearance be just noted by the court
while the Notice of Appeal dated November 5, 2002 was received by
this Court on October 9, 2002. Thus, it appears that with reference to
date, the Withdrawal of Appearance came ahead before the Notice of
Appeal. However, with respect to the filing, the Notice of Appeal was
filed ahead than the Withdrawal of Appearance.

Rupisan alleged on his Notice of Appeal that he received a copy

of the Decision rendered by this Court dated September 25, 2002 on
October 2, 2002 which means therefore that he has (sic) until October
17, 2002 within which to file his appeal. Although his Notice of Appeal
dated October 5, 2002 and was received by this Court on October 9,
2002, the appeal/docket fee was paid late as payment was made only
on October 23, 2002. 19

Anent Special Proceedings Case No. A-1278, the RTC disallowed the
appeal thereon on the ground that respondents did not comply with the
requirements provided by law. It said that aside from the fact that the
documents involved were not arranged in chronological order the same also did
not contain any data that will show the court that the appeal was perfected on
time. It added that neither the Compliance dated February 11, 2003 filed by
respondents contained any data showing that the appeal was perfected on
time. The trial court said that these requirements are mandatory 20 and non-
compliance therewith is fatal to the appeal. TcDaSI

The RTC declared that since no Notice of Appeal has effectively been filed
even up to the present, its decision dated 25 September 2002, has become
final and executory.

The dispositive portion of the Order dated 16 July 2003 reads:

WHEREFORE, for reasons above-stated, including those stated in
the Order of this court dated November 22, 2002, which are not in
conflict with the above, plaintiff/oppositor's appeal is denied.
Accordingly, the decision of this Court dated September 25, 2002, has
now become final and executory. 21

Respondents hastily filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of

Appeals which was given due course. A Decision was rendered on 10 November
2004, the dispositive portion of which provides:
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the petition is
GRANTED. The assailed resolutions of the respondent court denying the
notice of appeal filed by petitioners for late payment of docket fees are
hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The respondent trial court is
directed to give due course to petitioners' notice of appeal. 22

The Court of Appeals applied a liberal interpretation of the rules. It found

the delay excusable as respondents demonstrated their willingness to pay the
docket fees as manifested in their immediate compliance with the said
requirement. 23 aDHCAE

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com

 Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration 24 which was denied in a
Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated 1 April 2005. Hence, this Petition.
The following issues are for our resolution:
1. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS VALIDLY ACQUIRE
JURISDICTION OVER RESPONDENTS' PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IN CA-
G.R. SP No. 79405 NOTWITHSTANDING RESPONDENTS FAILURE TO FILE
A PRIOR MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AS AGAINST THE JULY 16,
2003 ORDER OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT A QUO.
2. CAN A LAWYER WHO WAS PRIORLY DISMISSED BY HIS
CLIENT STILL INTERVENE IN THE CASE BY FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL
WITHOUT THE CONFORMITY OF HIS FORMER CLIENT? STATED
DIFFERENTLY, IS THERE A VALID NOTICE OF APPEAL IN THE INSTANT
CASE.
3. EVEN ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE NOTICE OF APPEAL
WAS VALIDLY FILED, WERE RESPONDENTS IN THE PRESENT PETITION
ABLE TO PERFECT THEIR APPEAL ON TIME AS CONTEMPLATED BY LAW
AND JURISPRUDENCE. EcHIAC

4. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS IS GUILTY OF

GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF
JURISDICTION IN PLACING THE SELF-SERVING AND GRATUITOUS
EXPLANATION OF RESPONDENTS AS REGARDS THEIR DELAY IN THE
PAYMENT OF DOCKET FEES, WITHIN THE REALM OF THE EXCEPTIONAL
CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFYING THE LATE PAYMENT OF APPELLATE
COURT DOCKET AND OTHER LAWFUL FEES.
5. WHAT IS THE LEGAL STANDING OR HOW SHOULD THE
MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE RECORD ON APPEAL TOGETHER WITH
THE RECORD ON APPEAL FILED BY SIGUION REYNA MONTECILLO AND
ONGSIAKO BE TREATED IN THE ABSENCE OF A VALID SUBSTITUTION
OF COUNSEL? 25

Petitioner faults respondents for not filing a Motion for Reconsideration on

the assailed RTC order of 16 July 2003. Petitioner's theory is that a Petition for
Certiorari before the Court of Appeals may be availed of only after having
earlier filed a motion for reconsideration before the trial court.
We disagree.
The filing of a Motion for Reconsideration before resort to certiorari will lie
is intended to afford the public respondent an opportunity to correct any actual
or fancied error attributed to it by way of re-examination of the legal and
factual aspects of the case. 26 cHDAIS

Respondents actually filed a Motion for Reconsideration. It must be noted

that the 16 July 2003 Order of the trial court is in itself an order resolving the
motion for reconsideration dismissing the respondents' Notice of Appeal in Civil
Case No. A-2106.

In any event, the filing of a Motion for Reconsideration before availing of

the remedy of certiorari is not always sine qua non. 27 The rules admit of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 certain exceptions. 28 The instant case is one of those. In this case, a motion for
reconsideration would be useless in the light of the declaration of the RTC that
the Order of 16 July 2003 is final and executory.
We now proceed to resolve the second and fifth issues. Taken together,
the question to be resolved is: what is the effect of the withdrawal of Atty.
Guillermo as respondents' counsel of record on the Notice of Appeal 29 which
he had filed for both Civil Case No. A-2106 and Special Proceedings No. A-1278.
The Rule regarding change of counsel is provided under Rule 138, Section
26 thereat. It states:
SEC. 26. Change of attorneys. — An attorney may retire at
any time from any action or special proceeding, by the written consent
of his client filed in court. He may also retire at any time from an action
or special proceeding, without the consent of his client, should the
court, on notice to the client and attorney, and on hearing, determine
that he ought to be allowed to retire. In case of substitution, the name
of the attorney newly employed shall be entered on the docket of the
court in place of the former one, and written notice of the change shall
be given to the adverse party. cSDIHT

Admittedly, Atty. Guillermo filed a Notice of Withdrawal on 4 October

2002. The withdrawal notwithstanding, the trial court in its Order dated 22
November 2002 initially allowed the appeal of the respondents in Special
Proceedings No. A-1278, although it rejected the appeal in Civil Case No. A-
2106. Be that as it may, we are inclined to allow the Notice of Appeal for both
cases inspite of the obvious procedural lapse. When non-compliance with the
Rules of Court is not intended for delay or does not prejudice the adverse party,
the dismissal of an appeal on a mere technicality may be stayed and the court
may, in its sound discretion, exercise its equity jurisdiction. 30 This lack of
intention to delay is shown by the fact that the Notice of Appeal was filed on 5
October 2002, or only a difference of one day from the filing by Atty. Guillermo
of his Notice of Withdrawal. The emerging trend in our jurisprudence is to afford
every party-litigant the amplest opportunity for the proper and just
determination of his cause free from the constraints of technicalities. 31 While it
is desirable that the Rules of Court be faithfully and even meticulously
observed, courts should not be so strict about procedural lapses that do not
really impair the administration of justice especially when such strict
compliance was apparently relaxed by the trial court itself when it initially gave
due course to the Notice of Appeal. If the rules are intended to insure the
orderly conduct of litigation it is because of the higher objective they seek
which is the protection of the substantive rights of the parties. 32 Under the
circumstances we find that the notice of appeal signed by Atty. Guillermo
should be considered valid.
The next issue relates to docket fees, and the effect of the belated
payment by the respondents. The records show that on 2 October 2002, the
respondents received a copy of the decision. They had up to 17 October 2002
to file a Notice of Appeal and to pay the appropriate docket fees. It is not
disputed that said docket fees were paid only 23 October 2002, or six days
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 after the lapse of the period within which to pay the said docket fees. The
reason advanced by respondents for the delayed payment is poverty and
ignorance of legal procedures.
Rule 41, Section 4, of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, states:
SEC. 4. Appellate court docket and other lawful fees . —
Within the period for taking an appeal, the appellant shall pay to the
clerk of 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. EIASDT

xxx xxx xxx

SEC. 9. Perfection of appeal; effect thereof. — A party's
appeal by notice of appeal is deemed perfected as to him upon the
filing of the notice of appeal in due time.
A party's appeal by record on appeal is deemed perfected as to
him with respect to the subject matter thereof upon the approval of the
record on appeal filed in due time.

In appeals by notice of appeal, the court loses jurisdiction over

the case upon the perfection of the appeals filed in due time and the
expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties.
In appeals by record on appeal, the court loses jurisdiction only
over the subject matter thereof upon the approval of the records on
appeal filed in due time and the expiration of the time to appeal of the
other parties.
In either case, prior to the transmittal of the original record or the
record on appeal, the court may issue orders for the protection and
preservation of the rights of the parties which do not involve any
matter litigated by the appeal, approve compromises, permit appeals
of indigent litigants, order execution pending appeal in accordance
with Section 2 of Rule 39, and allow withdrawal of the appeal.

The failure of the appellant to pay the docket fees is a ground for the
dismissal of the appeal under Section 1 (c), Rule 50 of the same rule which
states:
SECTION 1. ....

(c) Failure of the appellant to pay the docket and other lawful
fees as provided in section 5 of Rule 40 and section 4 of Rule 41. IEHaSc

From the foregoing, it can be gleaned that the payment of docket fees
within the prescribed period is mandatory for the perfection of an appeal. This
is so because a court acquires jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action
only upon the payment of the correct amount of docket fees regardless of the
actual date of filing of the case in court.
In the case of Gegare v. Court of Appeals, 33 this Court upheld the
appellate court's dismissal of an appeal for failure of petitioner to pay the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 docket fees within the reglementary period despite a notice from the Court of
Appeals informing him that such fees had to be paid within 15 days from
receipt of such notice. Denying petitioner's plea for judicial leniency, we held
that —
Also without merit, in our view, is petitioner's plea for a liberal
treatment by the said court, rather than a strict adherence to the
technical rules, in order to promote substantial justice. For it has
consistently held that payment in full of docket fees within the
prescribed period is mandatory. As this Court has firmly declared in
Rodillas v. Commission on Elections [245 SCRA 702 (1995)], such
payment is an essential requirement before the court could acquire
jurisdiction over a case: ACDTcE

The payment of the full amount of the docket fee is an

indispensable step for the perfection of an appeal (Dorego v.
Perez, 22 SCRA 8 [1968]; Bello v. Fernando , 4 SCRA 135 [1962]).
In both original and appellate cases, the court acquires
jurisdiction over the case only upon the payment of the
prescribed docket fees as held in Acda v. Minister of Labor , 119
SCRA 306 (1982). The requirement of an appeal fee is by no
means a mere technicality of law or procedure. It is an essential
requirement without which the decision appealed from would
become final and executory as if no appeal was filed at all. The
right to appeal is merely a statutory privilege and may be
exercised only in the manner prescribed by, and in accordance
with, the provision of the law."

In Lazaro v. Court of Appeals, 34 decided 6 April 2000, the private

respondents therein failed to pay the docket fees within the reglementary
period. They paid the fees only after the Court of Appeals had dismissed the
appeal, that is, six months after the filing of the Notice of Appeal. The Court of
Appeals reinstated the appeal "in the interest of substantial justice" without
other justification. This Court, through then Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban,
though not persuaded, recognized that there are exceptions to the stringent
requirements of the law on payment of the docket fees, thus:
We must stress that the bare invocation of "the interest of
substantial justice" is not a magic wand that will automatically compel
this Court to suspend procedural rules. "Procedural rules are not to be
belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have
resulted in prejudice to a party's substantive rights. Like all rules, they
are required to be followed except only for the most persuasive of
reasons when they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice
not commensurate with the degree of this thoughtlessness in not
complying with the procedure prescribed." 35 (Emphasis supplied.) DAcSIC

Sure enough, the foregoing jurisprudence truly blazed the trails for a
liberal application of the strict interpretation of the law. 36

In Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority v. Mangubat, 37 the

payment of the docket fees was delayed by six days, but the late payment was
accepted because the party showed willingness to abide by the Rules by
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 immediately paying those fees. The Court also took note of the importance of
the issues in this case involving as it does the entitlement or not of the
respondents to properties involved.

Of similar import is the ruling of the court in the case ofGinete v. Court of
Appeals 38 where we held that aside from matters of life, liberty, honor or
property which would warrant the suspension of the rules of the most
mandatory character and an examination and review by the appellate court of
the lower court's findings of fact, the other elements that should be considered
are the following: (1) the existence of special or compelling circumstances; (2)
the merits of the case; (3) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or
negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules; (4) a lack of any
showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory, and (5) the
other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby. TCaEIc

Yambao v. Court of Appeals 39 saw us again relaxing the Rules when we

declared therein that "the appellate court may extend the time for the payment
of the docket fees if appellant is able to show that there is a justifiable reason
for the failure to pay the correct amount of docket fees within the prescribed
period, like fraud, accident, mistake, excusable negligence, or a similar
supervening casualty, without fault on the part of the appellant.
In Go v. Tong , 40 reiterated in Heirs of Bertuldo Hinog v. Melicor, 41 it was
held that while the payment of the prescribed docket fee is a jurisdictional
requirement, even its nonpayment at the time of filing does not automatically
cause the dismissal of the case, as long as the fee is paid within the applicable
prescriptive or reglementary period; more so when the party involved
demonstrates a willingness to abide by the rules prescribing such payment. 42

In Planters Products, Inc. v. Fertiphil Corporation, 43 the Court stated that

failure to pay the appellate docket fee does not automatically result in the
dismissal of an appeal, dismissal being discretionary on the part of the
appellate court. And in determining whether or not to dismiss an appeal on
such ground, courts have always been guided by the peculiar legal and
equitable circumstances attendant to each case.
I n Camposagrado v. Camposagrado , 44 the case involved a deficiency in
the payment of docket fees in the amount of Five Pesos (P5.00). This Court
called for the liberal interpretation of the rules and gave due course to the
appeal. In brief, the Court said that the failure to pay the appellate docket fee
does not automatically result in the dismissal of the appeal, dismissal being
discretionary on the part of the appellate court. A party's failure to pay the
appellate docket fee within the reglementary period confers only a
discretionary and not a mandatory power to dismiss the proposed appeal. Such
discretionary power should be used in the exercise of the court's sound
judgment in accordance with the tenets of justice and fair play with great deal
of circumspection, considering all attendant circumstances and must be
exercised wisely and ever prudently, never capriciously, with a view to
substantial justice. 45

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com

 In the subsequent case of Far Corporation v. Magdaluyo , 46 this Court,
while reiterating that the payment of docket and other legal fees within the
prescribed period is both mandatory and jurisdictional, in the same vein,
recognized that the existence of persuasive and weighty reasons call for a
relaxation of the rules. DHacTC

In La Salette College v. Pilotin, 47 notwithstanding the mandatory nature

of the requirement of payment of appellate docket fees, we also recognized
that its strict application is qualified by the following: first, failure to pay those
fees within the reglementary period allows only discretionary, not automatic,
dismissal; second, such power should be used by the court in conjunction with
its exercise of sound discretion in accordance with the tenets of justice and fair
play, as well as with a great deal of circumspection in consideration of all
attendant circumstances.
In all, what emerges from all of the above is that the rules of procedure in
the matter of paying the docket fees must be followed. However, there are
exceptions to the stringent requirement as to call for a relaxation of the
application of the rules, such as: (1) most persuasive and weighty reasons; (2)
to relieve a litigant from an injustice not commensurate with his failure to
comply with the prescribed procedure; (3) good faith of the defaulting party by
immediately paying within a reasonable time from the time of the default; (4)
the existence of special or compelling circumstances; (5) the merits of the
case; (6) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party
favored by the suspension of the rules; (7) a lack of any showing that the
review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; (8) the other party will not be
unjustly prejudiced thereby; (9) fraud, accident, mistake or excusable
negligence without appellant's fault; (10) peculiar legal and equitable
circumstances attendant to each case; (11) in the name of substantial justice
and fair play; (12) importance of the issues involved; and (13) exercise of sound
discretion by the judge guided by all the attendant circumstances. Concomitant
to a liberal interpretation of the rules of procedure should be an effort on the
part of the party invoking liberality to adequately explain his failure to abide by
the rules. Anyone seeking exemption from the application of the Rule has the
burden of proving that exceptionally meritorious instances exist which warrant
such departure. 48

In the case at bar, respondents were delayed in the payment of docket

fees for six (6) days only. The reason advanced by them was because of
poverty. Evidently, in the cases where the Supreme Court disallowed the late
payment of docket fees, the tardiness was for a significant period of time. 49
Guided by the foregoing jurisprudential pronouncements, it will be extremely
harsh for the Court to take a lackadaisical attitude towards the cause of the
respondents. We are convinced of the fastidiousness of the Court of Appeals'
decision. ESTCHa

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED for lack

of merit. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 10 November
2004 and Resolution dated 1 April 2005 are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com

 SO ORDERED.
Ynares-Santiago, Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr. and Nachura, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1. Rollo , pp. 69-80. Penned by Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr. with Associate
Justices Eubulo G. Verzola and Noel G. Tijam concurring.

2. Id. at 11.
3. CA rollo, Vol. II, p. 612.

4. Id. at 665.
5. Rollo , p. 142.
6. CA rollo, Vol. II, p. 665.

7. Rollo , p. 142.
8. CA rollo, Vol. II, p. 632.

9. Id. at 640.
10. Id. at 635.
11. Id. at 625.
12. Id. at 786; Only Romeo and Rodolfo Rupisan filed the Complaint in view of
the Deed of Renunciation of Real Rights executed by their other siblings,
Consuelo Z. Rupisan, Erlinda R. Lirag and Alejandro Z. Rupisan (Id. at 797).

13. Id. at 793; Section 1. Who may petition for the allowance of will. — Any
executor, devisee, or legatee named in a will, or any other person interested
in the estate, may, at any time after the death of the testator, petition the
court having jurisdiction to have the will allowed, whether the same be in his
possession or not, or is lost or destroyed. (Rule 76, Rules of Court.)

14. Rollo , pp. 94-95.

15. CA rollo, Vol. II, p. 621.
16. The RTC held:

In Civil Case No. 2106, what was submitted before this Honorable Court was
only a Notice of Appeal, however, it was only on October 23, 2002, that an
appeal fee of Forty Eight Pesos (P48.00) covered by O.R. No. 15919947 and
the amount of Four Hundred Fifty Two Pesos (P452.00) covered by O.R. No.
1591854 and another amount of Twenty Pesos (P20.00) covered by O.R. No.
15918522 which were paid to the Clerk of Court, in the manner therefore
that the payment of appeal fees prescribed under Rule 41 Sec. 4 of the
Revised Rules of Court was after the expiry of the fifteen days period to
perfect the appeal.
17. The RTC Order on this point reads:

However, with respect to the appeal filed by the Oppositor in Special

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 Proceeding Case No. A-1278, the appeal is considered seasonably filed upon
the timely filing of the Record of Appeal, inclusive of the required appeal fees,
but in accordance with Sec. 7 of Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court, let the
records on appeal be submitted for consideration by the Honorable Court for
purposes of its approval.

Let there be a hearing on Special Proceeding Case No. A-1278 for the
purpose of determining whether or not there are incidents to be included in
the record of appeal or there are amendments thereto which the Court
orders therefore the parties to appear on December 18, 2002 at 2:00 o'clock
in the afternoon for purposes of approval of the record of appeal submitted
by the Oppositor in Special Proc. Case No. 1278.

18. CA rollo, Vol. I, pp. 51-52.

19. Rollo , pp. 99-101.
20. Sec. 6, Rule 41, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
21. Rollo , p. 101.
22. Id. at 79.
23. Id. at 78.
24. CA rollo, Vol. II, p. 104.

25. Rollo , pp. 257-259. The new counsel of respondents, Siguion Reyna
Montecillo & Ongsiako, filed its entry of appearance on 5 November 2002
(Rollo , p. 296).
26. Sevillana v. I.T. (International) Corporation , G.R. No. 99047, 16 April 2001,
356 SCRA 451, 462.

27. Chas Realty and Development Corporation v. Talavera, 445 Phil. 43, 53
(2003).

28. The recognized exceptions where the special civil action for certiorari will
lie even without filing a motion for reconsideration includes: (a) where the
order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction; (b)
where the questions raised in the certiorari proceeding have been duly raised
and passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and
passed upon by the lower court; (c) where there is an urgent necessity for
the resolution of the question and any further delay would prejudice the
interests of the government or of the petitioner or the subject matter of the
action is perishable; (d) where, under the circumstances, a motion for
reconsideration would be useless; (e) where petitioner was deprived of due
process and there is extreme urgency for relief; (f) where, in a criminal case,
relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief by the
trial court is improbable; (g) where the proceedings in the lower court are a
nullity for lack of due process; (h) where the proceedings was ex parte or in
which the petitioner had no opportunity to object; and (i) where the issue
raised is one purely of law or public interest is involved. (Sevillana v. I.T.
[International] Corp., supra note 26 at 462.)
29. Rule 41, Section 9, of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court states that:

Sec. 9. — Perfection of appeal; effect thereof . — A party's appeal by notice

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 of appeal is deemed perfected as to him upon the filing of the notice of
appeal in due time.
A party's appeal by record on appeal is deemed perfected as to him with
respect to the subject matter thereof upon the approval of the record on
appeal filed in due time.

In appeals by notice of appeal, the court loses jurisdiction over the case upon
the perfection of the appeals filed in due time and the expiration of the time
to appeal of the other parties.

In appeals by record on appeal, the court loses jurisdiction only over the
subject matter thereof upon the approval of the records on appeal filed in
due time and the expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties.
In either case, prior to the transmittal of the original record or the record on
appeal, the court may issue orders for the protection and preservation of the
rights of the parties which do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal,
approve compromises, permit appeals of indigent litigants, order execution
pending appeal in accordance with Section 2 of Rule 39, and allow
withdrawal of the appeal.
30. Parañaque Kings Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals , 335 Phil. 1184, 1194
(1997).

31. Cojuangco v. Court of Appeals, 369 Phil. 41, 52.

32. Rinconanda Telephone Co., Inc. v. Buenviaje, G.R. Nos. 49241-42, 27 April
1990, 184 SCRA 701, 706.

33. 358 Phil. 228 (1998).

34. 386 Phil. 412 (2000).

35. Id. at 417.

36. Mactan International Airport v. Mangubat, 371 Phil. 393 (1999); Ginete v.
Court of Appeals, 357 Phil. 36 (1998); Yambao v. Court of Appeals, 399 Phil.
712 (2000).

37. Id.
38. Supra note 36.
39. Supra note 36.
40. G.R. No. 151942, 27 November 2003, 416 SCRA 557, 567.
41. G.R. No. 140954, 12 April 2005, 455 SCRA 460, 475.

42. Go v. Tong, supra note 40 at 567; Heirs of Bertuldo Hinog v. Melicor, supra
note 41 at 475.

43. G.R. No. 156278, 29 March 2004, 426 SCRA 414, 420.
44. G.R. No. 143195, 13 September 2005, 469 SCRA 602, 608.

45. Id.
46. G.R. No. 148739, 19 November 2004, 443 SCRA 218.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 47. 463 Phil. 785 (2003).

48. Enriquez v. Enriquez , G.R. No. 139303, 25 August 2005, 468 SCRA 77, 86.
49. See cases of La Salette College v. Pilotin, supra note 47 at 387-388; Lazaro
v. Court of Appeals, supra note 34; Barangay 24 of Legazpi City v. Imperial,
393 Phil. 357 (2,000); Enriquez v. Enriquez, id. ; Far Corporation v.
Magdaluyo, supra note 46; Tamayo v. Tamayo, Jr., G.R. No. 148482, 12
August 2005, 466 SCRA 618.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com