LILIA DIZON GONZALES, PETITIONER, VS. PHOEBE VILLACORTA & MARTALINO VALERA, RESPONDENTS.

Gonzales versus Villacorta

The Case

This is a case about the wrong way to appeal. Lilia Dizon Gonzales, the appellant, tried to bring a ruling of the Civil Service Commission directly to the Supreme Court by filing a notice of appeal. The private respondents, Phoebe Villacorta and Martalino Valera, are the parties who stood to benefit from the Commission's ruling. The Supreme Court does not reach the merits at all. It decides a pure question of procedure: which court hears an appeal from a quasi-judicial agency like the Civil Service Commission, and what happens when the appellant uses the wrong mode and fails to pay the docket fees. The case matters because it restates two hard rules every Bar candidate must know — the mode of appeal is jurisdictional, and so is the timely payment of docket fees.

Procedural History

The case began as an administrative matter before the Civil Service Commission, docketed as Administrative Case Number 14-0314. The Commission rendered a Decision on 25 July 2013, and later issued a Resolution on 21 October 2013. Instead of filing a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, the appellant filed a Notice of Appeal assailing both the Decision and the Resolution. The Supreme Court treated the Notice of Appeal as the recourse before it and resolved it in a short decision. The decision was penned by Justice Dimaampao, with Justices Ybañez and Manahan concurring.

Facts

An administrative case, Administrative Case Number 14-0314, was heard and decided by the Civil Service Commission. On 25 July 2013, the Commission issued its Decision. On 21 October 2013, it issued a Resolution. Both rulings were adverse to the appellant, Lilia Dizon Gonzales.

Seeking to overturn those rulings, the appellant filed a Notice of Appeal. She did not file a verified petition for review with the Court of Appeals. She also did not pay the required docket and other lawful fees.

The Supreme Court examined the recourse and found it defective on two grounds: the wrong mode of appeal, and the failure to pay docket fees within the prescribed period.

Issues

• Whether or not a notice of appeal is the correct mode of appeal from a decision or resolution of the Civil Service Commission, or whether the appellant should have filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals under Rule 43.
• Whether or not the appellant's failure to pay the required docket and other lawful fees is a ground for dismissing the appeal.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Court defines the scope of the rule and names the agencies covered:

SECTION 1. Scope. — This Rule shall apply to appeals from awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of or authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions. Among these agencies are the Civil Service Commission.

This provision establishes that the Civil Service Commission is one of the agencies whose rulings are appealed under Rule 43, not by notice of appeal to the Supreme Court.

Section 3 of Rule 43 states where the appeal is taken:

SEC. 3. Where to appeal. — An appeal under this Rule may be taken to the Court of Appeals within the period and in the manner herein provided, whether the appeal involves questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of fact and law.

This fixes the Court of Appeals as the proper forum, regardless of whether the appeal raises questions of fact, of law, or both.

Section 5 of Rule 43 states how the appeal is taken:

SEC. 5. How appeal taken. — Appeal shall be taken by filing a verified petition for review in seven (7) legible copies with the Court of Appeals, with proof of service of a copy thereof on the adverse party and on the court or agency a quo. The original copy of the petition intended for the Court of Appeals shall be indicated as such by the petitioner.

This prescribes the verified petition for review as the correct mode, which the appellant did not use.

Section 7 of Rule 43 states the effect of failure to comply with the requirements:

Sec. 7. Effect of failure to comply with requirements. — The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding payment of docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.

This makes the failure to pay docket fees an express ground for dismissal of the appeal.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Notice of Appeal was a wrong mode of appeal. The proper recourse was a petition for review under Rule 43, filed with the Court of Appeals. The Court stressed that an appeal taken to either the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals by the wrong or inappropriate mode shall be dismissed. It explained that an appeal is not a constitutional right but a mere statutory privilege, so parties who seek to avail themselves of it must comply with the statutes or rules allowing it. Perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period permitted by law is mandatory and jurisdictional, and the requirements for perfecting an appeal must, as a rule, be strictly followed.

On the second issue, the Court held that the appellant failed to pay the required docket and other legal fees under Section 7 of Rule 43. It reiterated that payment of the docket fee within the prescribed period is mandatory for the perfection of an appeal. Without such payment, the appellate court does not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action, and the decision sought to be appealed from becomes final and executory.

Doctrine

An appeal from a ruling of the Civil Service Commission in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions must be taken to the Court of Appeals by a verified petition for review under Rule 43, not by a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court. An appeal taken by the wrong or inappropriate mode shall be dismissed.

An appeal is not a constitutional right but a mere statutory privilege. Perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period permitted by law is mandatory and jurisdictional, and the requirements for perfecting an appeal must, as a rule, be strictly followed.

Payment of the docket fee within the prescribed period is mandatory for the perfection of an appeal. Without such payment, the appellate court does not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter, and the decision sought to be appealed from becomes final and executory. Under Section 7 of Rule 43, failure to pay docket and other lawful fees is a sufficient ground for dismissal.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the Notice of Appeal, so the appellant lost and the rulings of the Civil Service Commission stood.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: an appeal is a mere statutory privilege, and perfection in the manner and within the period fixed by law is mandatory and jurisdictional. Examiners use this case to test the Rule 43 mode of appeal from quasi-judicial agencies and the jurisdictional effect of nonpayment of docket fees.