G.R. No. 139596
January 24, 2004
Facts
Respondent UnionBank of the Philippines (UBP) owned a parcel of agricultural land which it offered to sell at Php2.2M. Petitioner offered to buy the property for a lesser price of Php2.078M and paid an earnest money of P103,915.27 as proof of his interest to buy the property. However, UnionBank rejected petitioner’s offer because the land in dispute was covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law such that, the sale of such land without the approval of the Department of Agrarian Reform is null and void.
Unable to accept UBP rejection of his offer, petitioner filed an action for specific performance and damages against UBP before the RTC. The RTC dismissed the petitioner’s complaint because the said court find no perfected contract of sale that transpired between the parties. Thereafter, petitioner appealed but was denied for nonpayment of the required docket and other appeal fees. Notwithstanding, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was also denied and the Court even expunged from the record the appellant’s brief. Hence, this petition.
Petitioner is seeking for the relaxation of procedural rules by contending that his failure to pay the appeal docket fees on time is a non-fatal lapse, or a non-jurisdictional defect which the CA should have ignored in order to attain substantial justice. Further, petitioner passes the blame to the RTC clerk of court who allegedly made the erroneous computation of docket fees.
Issue
Can the rules of procedure be relaxed on this case?
Held
No.
RULES OF PROCEDURE MAY BE RELAXED ONLY FOR PERSUASIVE AND WEIGHTY REASONS. Invocation of substantial justice is not a magical incantation that will automatically compel the Court to suspend procedural rules. Rules of procedure 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.
Even if the rules required that nonpayment of appellate docket fee is mandatory, the Court recognizes that the failure to pay the appeal fees within the reglementary period allows only discretionary and not automatic dismissal of the complaint, provided that 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. Hence, in Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA) vs. Mangubat, the late payment of docket fees was admitted when the party showed willingness to abide by the Rules by immediately paying the required fees six (6) days after the reglementary period filing of the notice of appeal.
Unlike in Mactan, payment of the appellate docket fees in this case was effected by petitioner only after four (4) months following the expiration of the reglementary period to take an appeal. Petitioner acts, therefore, does not show his willingness to abide by the Rules.
Hence, the Rules of Procedure cannot be relaxed in favor of petitioner.