MARIA BOMEDIANO, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, VS. ANIANA ARARAO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.

Bomediano versus Ararao

The Case

This is the case of Bomediano versus Ararao, in which the plaintiffs-appellants sought review of a judgment rendered against them by the trial court. The action reached the Supreme Court on appeal, but the appeal never reached the merits. What the Court confronted was a threshold procedural failure: the appellants did not pay the full amount of the appellate court docket fee within the period for taking an appeal, despite an express directive to pay the deficiency. The case matters because it restates, in the clearest terms, that appeal is not a constitutional right but a mere statutory privilege, and that the payment of docket fees within the period for perfecting an appeal is mandatory. It is a standing reminder that procedural rules on appeal are not suggestions but conditions.

Procedural History

The plaintiffs-appellants lost before the trial court and brought their case up on appeal. In the course of the appeal, the Judicial Records Division reported that the docket fee paid was short by thirty pesos. On February 8, 2013, the Supreme Court issued a Resolution noting that report and directing the appellants to pay the lacking thirty pesos for the docket fee within five days from notice. The appellants received that Resolution, as shown by the registry return receipt, but paid nothing. On November 26, 2013, the Judicial Records Division reported that no compliance had been made, as reflected in the Cebu civil docket entry. Upon re-verification, the Division again reported, in a docket entry dated May 29, 2014, that the appellants had failed to comply with the directive. With the appeal already pending before the Supreme Court and the deficiency still unpaid, the Court resolved the appeal on that ground.

Facts

The plaintiffs-appellants appealed from a judgment of the trial court. Under the rules, the appellant must pay the full amount of the appellate court docket and other lawful fees within the period for taking an appeal. When the records reached the Supreme Court, the Judicial Records Division found that the docket fee paid was short by thirty pesos.

The Court, by Resolution dated February 8, 2013, directed the appellants to pay the lacking thirty pesos within five days from notice. The appellants received the Resolution, as evidenced by the registry return receipt. They did not pay.

On November 26, 2013, the Judicial Records Division reported that no compliance had been made. Upon re-verification, it reported again, in a docket entry dated May 29, 2014, that the appellants had still not complied. Up to the date of the decision, despite receipt of the Resolution, no compliance was ever made. The Court treated this lack of interest and the considerable lapse of time without positive action as an indication that the appellants were no longer interested in pursuing the appeal.

Issues

• Whether or not the appeal may be dismissed for the appellants' failure to pay the full amount of the appellate court docket fee within the period for taking an appeal.
• Whether or not the appellants gave a sufficient reason to be exempt from the stringent rule requiring full payment of docket fees.

Applicable Provisions

Section 4 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, as amended, provides:

Sec. 4. Appellate court docket and other lawful fees. — Within the period for taking an appeal, the appellant shall pay to the clerk of the 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.

This fixes the period and the place for full payment, and it is the provision the appellants violated.

Section 1 of Rule 50 of the Rules of Court provides:

Sec. 1. Grounds for dismissal of appeal. An appeal may be dismissed by the Court of Appeals, on its own motion or on that of the appellee, on the following grounds . . . (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 . . . .

This supplies the consequence: non-compliance with the payment requirement is a ground for dismissal of the appeal.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the appeal must be dismissed. Appeal is not a constitutional right but a mere statutory privilege, and it must be exercised strictly in accordance with the provisions of the law and rules. Specifically, the payment of docket fees within the period for perfecting an appeal is mandatory. The Court quoted Section 4 of Rule 41 and held that payment in full of docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory, and that non-compliance therewith may cause the dismissal of the appeal pursuant to Section 1 of Rule 50.

On the second issue, the Court held that the appellants had not given sufficient reason why they should be exempt from this stringent rule. They received the Resolution of February 8, 2013, yet made no compliance up to even date. Their lack of interest in complying with the directive, and the considerable lapse of time from receipt of notice without positive action, indicated that they were no longer interested in pursuing the appeal. The Court cited the ruling in Spouses Manalili versus Spouses De Leon that appeal is a mere statutory privilege to be exercised strictly in accordance with the law and rules.

Doctrine

Appeal is not a constitutional right but a mere statutory privilege, and it must be exercised strictly in accordance with the provisions of the law and rules. The payment of docket fees within the period for perfecting an appeal is mandatory. Under Section 4 of Rule 41, the appellant shall pay the full amount of the appellate court docket and other lawful fees within the period for taking an appeal, and proof of payment shall be transmitted to the appellate court with the record. Non-compliance with this requirement is a ground for dismissal of the appeal under Section 1 of Rule 50. An appellant who receives notice of a deficiency and fails to act for a considerable time, without sufficient reason for exemption from the stringent rule, is deemed no longer interested in pursuing the appeal.

Disposition

The appeal was dismissed pursuant to Section 4 of Rule 41 in relation to Section 1 of Rule 50 of the Revised Rules of Court, so the defendants-appellees prevailed.

Remember This

Memorize the line: appeal is not a constitutional right but a mere statutory privilege, and full payment of docket fees within the period for taking an appeal is mandatory. Examiners use this case on the consequences of a deficient docket fee, on the dismissal of appeals under Rule 50, and on the strict compliance demanded of appellants.