FELIX GUEVARRA AND EMERENCIANA GUEVARRA, PETITIONERS, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS AND GAUDENCIO GADDI, LOURDES BUSTOS GADDI, VICTORIA, MYRNA, SHEILA AND MARIA LOURDES, ALL SURNAMED…

Guevarra versus Court of Appeals

The Case

This is the case of Guevarra versus Court of Appeals, a petition for review on certiorari that the Supreme Court treated as a special civil action. Felix Guevarra and Emerenciana Guevarra, the defendants in the trial court, ask the Court to reverse the Court of Appeals, which dismissed their appeal for their failure to pay the docket and legal research fees on time. The private respondents are Gaudencio Gaddi, Lourdes Bustos Gaddi, Victoria, Myrna, Sheila, and Maria Lourdes, all surnamed Gaddi, the plaintiffs below. The case matters because it fixes the rule that the payment of appellate docket fees within the reglementary period is an indispensable step for the perfection of an appeal, and that a lawyer's negligence binds the client.

Procedural History

The then Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch Twenty-Eight in Pasay City, rendered judgment against the petitioners, ordering them to pay the private respondents thirty-six thousand pesos as unrealized income or actual damages, forty thousand pesos as moral damages, five thousand pesos as attorney's fees, and the costs of the suit.

From this adverse decision, the petitioners, as defendants below, sought to appeal to the Court of Appeals. They filed their Notice of Appeal and Record on Appeal, then required, but they failed to pay the docketing fee of forty-eight pesos plus the five pesos required under Republic Act Number 3870, the legal research fee, or a total of fifty-three pesos, within the fifteen-day period granted by the Court of Appeals. That period expired on December 10, 1975, and they paid only on January 20, 1976, forty-one days late. By counsel, they pleaded inadvertence, oversight, and pressure of work.

The Court of Appeals denied their prayer on February 19, 1976, and dismissed the appeal, ruling that a delay of forty-one days was too much and that no prima facie showing had been made why the payment should be admitted. On March 3, 1976, it reaffirmed its resolution. The petitioners moved for reconsideration, invoking substantial compliance, excusable negligence, and liberal construction of the rules, but the motion was denied on April 6, 1976 for lack of sufficient merit. The petitioners then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari, which the Court, in a resolution dated July 28, 1976, treated as a special civil action and declared submitted for decision.

Facts

The Gaddi family obtained a judgment for damages against the Guevarra spouses in the Court of First Instance of Rizal. The Guevarras decided to appeal and complied with the filing of the Notice of Appeal and the Record on Appeal, which the rules then required.

What they failed to do was pay the appellate docket and legal research fees totaling fifty-three pesos within the fifteen-day period from notice. The period expired on December 10, 1975. They paid only on January 20, 1976, forty-one days late, explaining through counsel that the notice had been misplaced in the office due to accident, mistake, inadvertence, and excusable negligence, and that counsel had been very busy attending to cases in Metro Manila and the provinces with only one secretary.

The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, and the Supreme Court noted that counsel's law office was itself in Manila, not more than seven kilometers from the Court of Appeals, making it inexplicable why it took forty days to locate a misplaced notice instead of simply inquiring at the court.

Issues

• Whether or not the delay in paying the docket and legal research fees tolled the petitioners' right to appeal.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal for late payment of the docket fees.
• Whether or not the negligence of counsel in failing to pay the fees on time may be excused as excusable negligence binding on the client.

Applicable Provisions

Section 5 of Rule 46 of the Rules of Court, as quoted in the decision, provides:

It is the duty of the appellant in the Court of Appeals, within fifteen days from the date of the notice referred to in the preceding section, to pay to the clerk of the Court of Appeals the fee for the docketing of the appeal.

This provision fixes the fifteen-day period that the petitioners violated, making their payment forty-one days late.

Section 1 of Rule 50 of the Rules of Court, as quoted in the decision, provides:

SECTION 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: xxx xxx xxx (d) Failure of the appellant to pay the docketing fee as provided in Section 5 of Rule 46; xxx xxx xxx

This provision supplies the sanction of dismissal that the Court of Appeals imposed and that the Supreme Court affirmed.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the delay did toll the petitioners' right to appeal. The payment of the docket fee within the fifteen-day period is the duty of the appellant, and the petitioners admittedly paid forty-one days late. For such tardiness, they must suffer the sanction imposed by the Rules of Court, which is the dismissal of their appeal under Section 1 of Rule 50.

On the second issue, the Court held that the Court of Appeals did not err and did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal. It acted precisely as the Rules authorized.

On the third issue, the Court rejected the plea of excusable negligence. The explanation was flimsy, an old hat and a hackneyed pretext resorted to by negligent or lazy lawyers, which has never been given the badge of excusability. The Court recalled its early ruling in Lazaro versus Endencia that payment of the full amount of the docket fee is an indispensable step for the perfection of an appeal, and it stressed that a client is bound by his lawyer's negligence. It also noted that the counsel's office was in Manila, not more than seven kilometers from the Court of Appeals, making a forty-day search for a misplaced notice inexplicable. Finally, while a trial court may in its discretion extend the time for appeal, it must be satisfactorily shown that there is justifiable reason such as fraud, accident, mistake, excusable negligence, or similar supervening casualty without fault on the part of the appellant, and the petitioners failed to present such a fact.

Doctrine

The payment of the full amount of the appellate docket and legal research fees within the reglementary period is an indispensable step for the perfection of an appeal. Failure to pay on time is a ground for dismissal of the appeal under Section 1 of Rule 50, and the Court of Appeals may dismiss the appeal on its own motion.

The negligence of counsel in failing to pay the fees on time binds the client, and mere pressure of work, oversight, or a misplaced notice does not amount to excusable negligence. The periods for performing acts incident to an appeal must be strictly complied with, lest they be evaded by subterfuges and manufactured excuses.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed, and the resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated February 19, 1976, March 3, 1976, and March 27, 1976 were affirmed, with costs against the petitioners.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the payment of the appellate docket fee within the reglementary period is an indispensable step for the perfection of an appeal, and the client is bound by his lawyer's negligence. Examiners use this case to test the grounds for dismissal of appeals under Rule 50 and the limits of excusable negligence and liberal construction of the rules.