041.Benjamin Bautista vs.

Shirley Unangst and other Unknown Persons

G.R. No. 173002, July 4, 2008
PONENTE: REYES, R.T., J.:

Doctrine:
xxxxx..
The right to appeal is purely statutory right. Not being a natural
right or a part of due process, the right to appeal may be exercised only in
the manner and in accordance with the rules provided therefor. For this
reason, payment of the full amount of the appellate court docket fees and other
lawful fees within the reglementary period is mandatory and jurisdictional.
Nevertheless, as this
Court ruled in Aranas vs. Endona, the strict application of the jurisdictional nature
of the above rule on payment of appellate docket fees may be mitigated under
exceptional circumstances to better serve the interest of justice. It is always within
the power of this court to suspend its own rules, or to except a particular case from
their operation, whenever the purposes of justice require it.
XXX. , the Court relax the rigid application of the ruler of procedure
to afford the parties the opportunity to fully ventilate their cases on the
merits. This is in line with the time-honored principle that cases shoulc be
decided only after giving all the parties the chance to argue their causes
and defenses. For it, is far better to dispose of a case on the merit which is the
primordial end, rather than on a technicality, if it be the case, that may result in
justice. The emerging trend in the rulings of this Court is to afford every party-
litigant the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his case,
free from constraints of technicalities.XXX.
Technicality and procedural imperfections should thus not serve as
bases of decisions. In that way, the ends of justice would better be served.
For indeed, the general objective of the procedure is to facilitate the
application of justice to the rival claims of the contending parties, bearing
always in mind that procedure is not to hinder but promote the
administration of justice.

FACTS:
* In Nov. 15, 1996, Hamilton Salak rented a car to GAB rent-a car for 3
consecutive days at Php1,000/day from owner of GAB, petitioner -Benjamin
BAUTISTA. Salak failed to return the car after three (3) days, prompting petitioner
to file a complaint for estafa, violation of BP bldg. 22 and carnapping.

* On Feb. 2, 1997 Salak and his common-law wife, Shirley UNANGST,

respondent,were arrested by the officers of Crime Investigation Service Group of
the PNP while riding the rented car.

* Petioner- Bautista demanded from Salak at CISG Office payment of PHP 232,372
as car rental fees, fees incurred in locating the car and attorneys fees, capital gains
tax and oither incidental expenses.

* Salak and the wife Unangst expressed willingness to pay but since they were then
short on
cash, theyproposed to sell to BAUTISTA a house and lot titled in the name of
Shirley Unangst0-respondent, H&L was mortgage to Jojo Lee. Cynthia the wife of
Bautista welcome the proposal and agreed to pay the mortgage loan to Lee at PHP
295,000 which was to be publicly auctioned at Feb. 17, 1997.

* Written agreement was made to formalize the amicable settlement, Cynthia,

Salak, Unangst stipulated that respondent would sell, subject to repurchase her
residential property in favor of Cynthia for PHP 525, 372.00 breakdowns;(a) Php
295k amount paid by Cynthia to Lee to release the mortgageproperty ; (b) Php 232,
372.00 amount due to GAB.

* Also executed a separate Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase with the following
terms:
(1) vendor respondent shall pay capital gains tax, current real estate tax and
utility bills;
(2) fails to repurchase within 30 days from date of the deed, respondents must
immediately vacate,
And assign it without judicial order.
(3) refusal entitle petitioner to take immediate possession of the property.

* Respodent failed to repurchase , on June 5, 1998 petitioner filed against Unangst

before the RTC of Olongapo City:

(a) Specific Performance/ or recovery of possession.

(b) Sum of Money
(c) Consolidation of ownership
(d) damages

*June 16, 1998, complaint was amended added prayer for CONSOLIDATION OF
OWNERSHIP pursuant to Art. 1607 of Civil Code. Respondent controverted the
allegation and averred in their Answer plaintiff have NO CAUSE OF ACTION, that
DOS was signed under Duress & intimidation employed by petitioner or if freely
given contract of Sale was Simulatede & Fictitious, that sale was as Equitable
Mortgage, that arrear in car rental is only Php 90K and that instanty petition is
premature as plaintif have not yet consolidated ownership of property and also
made a COUNTERCLAIM against petitioner for moral damages and attorneys fees.

* July 29, 2004 The RTC ruled in favor of Petitioner Bautista.

*Respondents failed to interpose a timely appeal. However, on September 10,

2004, respondent Unangst filed a petition for relief pursuant to Section 38 of
the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure. She argued that she learned of thedecision
of the RTC only on September 6, 2004 when she received a copy of the motion for
execution filed by petitioner.

*Petitioner, on the other hand, moved for the dismissal of respondents petition on
the ground that the latter paid an insufficient sum of P200.00 as docket fees, which
was suppose to be Php 1,715.00. Respondent Unangst argued that it initially paid
P200.00 as docket fees as this was the amount assessed by theClerk of Court of
the RTC.
*Nevertheless, the correct amount was subsequently paid by said respondent on
February 22, 2005.
The RTC granted the petition for relief. Subsequently, it directed respondents to file
a notice of appeal within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of the order.
Accordingly, on February 23, 2005, respondents filed their notice of appeal.

*CA found that the respondents had perfected an appeal via petition for
relief to be able to appeal judgment even when the fees were paid beyond the
period prescribed to bring such action. It also reversed the decision of the RTC
finding the Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase a document of sale executed by
the respondent in favor of the petitioner and in further holding such contract as one
of equitable mortgage (Sales issue).

ISSUE(S): WON,CA committed grave error in finding that the respondent perfected
an appeal via Petition for Relief To be Able to Appeal Judgement even when the
proper docket fees were paid beyond the period prescribed to bring such action.

HELD: No. CA did not commit grave error.

On this issue, respondent counters that the belated payment of proper docket fees
was not due to their fault but to theimproper assessment by the Clerk of Court.
Respondent asserts the ruling of the CA that the court may extend the time for the
payment of the docket fees if there is a justifiable reason for the failure to
pay the correct amount. Moreover, respondent argues that petitioner failed to
contest the RTC Order dated February 21, 2004 that allowed the payment of
supplementary docket fees. Petitioner failed to file a motion for reconsideration or a
petition for certiorari to the higher court to question said order.

We agree with respondents. Their failure to pay the correct amount of docket fees
was due to a justifiable reason.

The right to appeal is a purely statutory right. Not being a natural right or a part of
due process, the right to appeal may beexercised only in the manner and in
accordance with the rules provided therefor.For this reason, payment of the full
amount of the appellate court docket and other lawful fees within the reglementary
period is mandatory and jurisdictional.

Nevertheless, as this Court ruled in Aranas v. Endona, the strict application of the
jurisdictional nature of the above rule on payment of appellate docket fees may be
mitigated under exceptional circumstances to better serve the interest of justice. It
is always within the power of this Court to suspend its own rules, or to except a
particular case from their operation, whenever the purposes of justice require it.

In not a few instances, the Court relaxed the rigid application of the rules of
procedure to afford the parties the opportunity to fully ventilate their cases on the
merits. This is in line with the time-honored principle that cases should be decided
only after giving all parties the chance to argue their causes and defenses. For, it is
far better to dispose of a case on the merit which is a primordial end, rather than on
a technicality, if it be the case that may result in injustice. The emerging trend in
the rulings of this Court is to afford every party-litigant the amplest opportunity for
the proper and just determination of his
cause, free from the constraints of technicalities.
Considering the foregoing, there is a need to suspend the strict application of the
rules so that the petitioners would be able to fully and finally prosecute their claim
on the merits at the appellate level rather than fail to secure justice on a
technicality, for, indeed, the general objective of procedure is to facilitate the
application of justice to the rival claims of contending parties, bearing always in
mind that procedure is not to hinder but to promote the administration of justice.

Wherefore, petition is denied for lack of merit.