ANTHONY CHAN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. OCEANIC WIRELESS NETWORK, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from
the order of the Court of First Instance of Davao
dismissing the appeal of the defendant for its failure to pay in full the
appellate court’s docket fee.  The Court
of Appeals certified this case to us for final determination for the reason
that then question in­volved is one of law.

On July 18,
1962 the plaintiff
instituted an action for damages against the defendant in the Justice of the Peace Court (now Municipal Court) of Mati, Davao. 
After trial judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the
defendant, ordering the latter to pay the former the sums of P1,036.49 as
actual damages and P300.00 as attorney’s fees. 
Notice of the judgment was received by counsel for the defendant on October
25, 1962.  The next day the defendant filed with the Justice
of the Peace Court a notice of appeal to the Court of First
Instance, with the appeal bond of P25.00 in the form of cash deposit with the
Municipal Treasurer, and a postal money order for P12.00 payable to the clerk
of the Court of First Instance
of Davao for the appellate court docket fee.  The Justice of the Peace then transmitted the
record of the case to the clerk of the Court of First Instance, who
acknowledged receipt thereof in a notice dated November 10, 1962.

Two days after the
expiration of the fifteen day period within which to perfect the appeal the
plaintiff moved to dismiss the same on the ground of failure to pay in full the
docket fee which, in accordance with Rule 130, Section 5 of the Rules of Court
(old) should be P32.00 instead of P12.00. 
In an order dated November 17, 1962 the Court a quo dismissed the
appeal.  Thereupon the defendant moved to
reconsider, but was turned down in an order dated December 22, 1962.

The
only issue here is whether or not the appeal to the Court of First Instance of Davao was perfected in ac­cordance with Rule 40, Section 2^[1] of the Rules of
Court (old), notwithstanding the
failure to pay in full the appellate court docket fee.

Appellant contends that
the Court a quo should have allowed the appeal as there was
substantial compliance with the Rules of Court, the deficiency in the amount
paid for docket fee being a technical defect which could be cured.  Appellant maintains that the rules on
procedure should be construed liberally so as not to deprive it of the right to
appeal on mere technicality.  Moreover,
it claims good faith and lack of intention to disregard the Rules and explains
that the deficiency of P20.00 in the docket fee was due to an honest mistake in
computation on the part of counsel, he being a new practitioner who was then appealing a civil
case for the first time.  It had that
counsel, upon realizing his mistake and without having been asked to do so by
the clerk of the Court of First Instance, purchased a postal money order for P20.00 on November 16, 1962, with the intention of remitting the same to
cover the shortage in the docket fee.

The
rule is settled that, in case of appeals from inferior courts to the Courts of
First Instance, the amount of the appellate court docket fee should be deposited
in full within a period of fifteen days. 
Thus, if half only of the amount is deposited and the other half is
tendered after the expiration of such period, the appeal is not deemed
perfected.^[2] True, in several
instances this Court has re­laxed the rule and then allowed the appeal in order
to pre­vent a miscarriage of justice. 
For instance, where the appellants were from the very beginning ready
and willing to pay the correct amount of docket fee and the failure to do so
was caused by the mistake of either the clerk of the Court of First Instance^[3] or the clerk of
the justice of the peace court,^[4] or of the justice of the peace and the
municipal treasurer,^[5] or of the municipal treasurer alone,^[6] this Court held that it would be unjust to
dismiss the appeal under the circumstances because:

“Every citizen has the right to assume and trust that a public
officer charged by law with certain duties knows his duties and performs them
in accordance with law.  To penalize such a
citizen for relying upon said officer in all good faith is repugnant to
justice.”

 In the instant case, however, the
failure of the appellant to pay the full amount of appellate court docket fee
was due to the inexcusable negligence of Atty. Antonio Olmedo, its
counsel in the Justice of the Peace Court, if not indeed to his ignorance of
the Rules.  The explanation that such
failure was caused by an honest mistake of said counsel in the computation of the amount required is
not credible.  Under Rule 30, Section 5
of the Rules of Court (old), no computation was necessary.  Besides, the amount of P12.00 which was
actually paid was below the statutory minimum of P16.00.  Evidently, said counsel did not refer to the
Rules.  The fact that he was a new
practitioner did not justify his negligence. 
If anything, it should have made him more careful in the handling of his
cases.  Under the circumstances, the
dismissal of the appeal does not constitute a reversible error.

WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against the
appellant.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro,
Fernando, and Capistrano, JJ., concur.

^[1]
SEC. 2.  Appeal,
how perfected.  – An appeal shall be
perfected within fifteen days after notification to the party of the judgment
complained of, (a) by filing with the justice of the peace or municipal judge a
notice of appeal; (b) by delivering a certificate of the municipal treasurer
showing that the appellant has deposited the appellate court docket fee, or, in
chartered cities, a certificate of the clerk of such court showing receipt of
the said fee; and (c) by giving a bond.

^[2]
Gambol and Burog vs. Hon. Barcelona, et al.,
106 Phil. 328, 330, citing the case of Lazaro vs.
Endencia, et al., 57 Phil. 552.

^[3]
Segovia vs. Barrios, et al., 75 Phil. 764.

^[4]
Marasigan vs. Palacio,
87 Phil. 839.

^[5]
Gambol and Burog vs. Hon. Barcelona, supra

^[6]
Amado Tagulao vs. Judge Fortunata
Padlanmundok, et al., G. R. No. L-15550, May 30, 1960; Barnido et al., vs.
Balana, G. R. No. L-26275, July 26, 1966.