G.R. No. L-5736. January 30, 1954

The Justice of the Peace Court of Gandara, Samar, allowed the
plaintiff Valentin Aligarbes to sue as pauper in a forcible entry case.
After due hearing, the complaint was dismissed. Within the reglementary
period he filed a motion to appeal in forma pauperis, together
with a notice of appeal to the Court of First Instance. The Justice of
the Peace by written order of July 25, 1950, declared he had no
authority to permit the plaintiff to litigate as pauper on appeal and
that such permission may only be granted by the Court of First
Instance. However the same judge “transmitted” the records to the
superior court “for its proper determination in the premises.”

On August 3, 1950 the clerk of Samar Court of First Instance addressed to the defendants a letter of the following tenor:

“In accordance with the provisions of Act 3171 in
relation with section 7, Rule 40, of the Rules of Court, you are hereby
notified that the above-entitled civil case has been entered on this
date in the docket of this court in view of the appeal taken by the
plaintiff from the decision of the Justice of the Peace of Gandara,
Samar.

“In view hereof, you are required to file before this
court your answer to the complaint or any other pleadings therein
within fifteen days from receipt of this notice. If you fail to do so,
judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded
in the complaint.

“Witness the Honorable Fidel Fernandez, Judge of said court, this 3rd day of August, 1950.”

The defendants duly answered. During the hearing, and while the plaintiff was testifying, the trial judge issued this order:

“This case was appealed from the Justice of the
Peace Court of Gandara. No docket fees were paid by the appellant on
the ground that he presented a motion before the Justice of the Peace
Court that he be allowed to appeal this case as pauper. The Justice of
the Peace Court, in its order, remanded this case to this court but
with the injunction that such petition to appeal as pauper be presented
before this Court of First Instance who has the authority to consider
it. Such was not done. The required fee for docketing this case was not
paid. Neither was an order from this court to docket the same without
fee obtained.

“But in spite of the failure to pay the fee and to obtain the order of this court, the case was docketed.

“This court is of the opinion and so holds that the docketing was illegal, it being in contravention of the provisions of law.

“In
as much as the period for appeal has already expired, to return this
case to the Justice of the Peace Court of origin, or to allow the
plaintiff to pay the docketing fee or secure the order from this court
to allow it a pauper’s appeal would be void as this court has not
acquired jurisdiction over this case. The judgment of the Justice of
the Peace Court has already become final.

“Therefore, the
court orders that this case be returned to the Justice of the Peace
Court of Gandara for the execution of the judgment.”

His motion for reconsideration having been denied, the plaintiff
interposed this petition for review, which the court a quo subsequently
certified as a pauper’s appeal.

The expediente clearly shows the appellant’s lack of means. And, in
view of the constitutional mandate that poverty shall not deny any
person free access to the courts, we are impelled to hold that under
the circumstances it was a mistaken exercise of discretion to dismiss
the case for nonpayment of fees.

The Justice of the Peace granted permission to litigate as pauper by
virtue of section 22, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court under which said
officer could have subsequently excused the poor litigant from
compliance with the requisites involving payment of money to perfect
his appeal (Lacson vs, Tabarres, 68 Phil., 317). In other words the
justice of the peace had the authority to permit Aligarbes to appeal as
pauper. Wherefore, his mistake as to the extent of his powers should
not prejudice herein plaintiff.^[1]
True, the Lacson decision says the appellant should also ask permission
from the Court of First Instance to continue or substantiate his appeal
in forma pauperis; but Aligarbes probably thought it
unnecessary to take further steps, the clerk having already docketed
the cause without payment of fees as shown by the letter requiring
defendants to answer.

Supposing then that, strictly speaking, the controversy was not
before the court due to nonpayment of fees, “the lapse in the literal
observance of a rule of procedure could be overlooked as it did not
involve public policy, and arose from an honest mistake”^[2]

It would now be unfair to hold that the decision of the Justice of
the Peace has become final. The plaintiff took all the steps necessary
to perfect his appeal; and it was only through the error of said
officer, and of the clerk of court that the matter of court fees has
not been attended to. There being no question as to appellant’s
inability to pay, he should be afforded opportunity to comply with
procedural requirements to enable him to prosecute his suit.

In view of the foregoing, the record will be returned so that the
Justice of the Peace may pass on the petition to appeal as pauper, and
the Court of First Instance may also act thereafter, upon request by
the litigant for exemption from payment of fees. So ordered, without
costs.

Paras, C. J., Pablo, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo, and Bautista Angelo, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Where failure of appellants
to file an appeal bond on time is due to an error of the Justice of the
Peace they will not be deprived of their right to be heard in the Court
of First Instance. (Alandy vs. San Jose, 79 Phil., 811, 45 Off. Gaz.
No. 7, p. 2829.)

^[2] (Ethel Case and Minna Nantz vs. Jugo, 77 Phil., 517, 43 Off. Gaz. No. 11, 4620).