IÑAKI A. LARRAZABAL ENTERPRISES,INC., SPS. IÑAKI P. LARRAZABAL, JR. AND MAGDALENA S. LARRAZABAL, SPS. CLAUDIO P. LARRAZABAL AND CORAZON LARRAZABAL, AND SPS. ERNESTO RIZARRI AND …

This appeal under Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, seeks to reverse and set aside the April 2, 2007 Decision^[1] of RTC, Branch 12, Ormoc City.

Upon verification of the case, the Judicial Records Division (CA-JRD), made a report^[2] dated June 20, 2014 that defendants-appellants have failed to attach proof of payment of docket fees.

In the case of Province of Camarines Sur, et al, vs. Heirs of Agustin Pato, et. al^[3], the Supreme Court held that the mere filing of the Notice of Appeal is not enough, for it must be accompanied by the payment of the correct appellate docket fees. Payment in full of docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory. It is an essential requirement without which the decision appealed from would become final and executory as if no appeal had been filed.

Section 4 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, as amended, provides that appellate court docket and other lawful fees should be paid within the period for taking an appeal, viz:

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.

Payment in full of docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory. Non-compliance therewith may cause the dismissal of the appeal pursuant to Sec. 1, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court, which reads:

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 . . . .

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED pursuant to Sections 4, Rule 41 in relation to Section 1, Rule 50 of the Revised Rules of Court.

SO ORDERED.

Ingles,^* and Lopez, JJ., concur.

---

^* Per Office Order No. 13-14-GTI dated June 17, 2014 vice J. Delos Santos.

^[1] Rollo, p. 16, Index.

^[2] Ibid., back of p. 30.

^[3] G.R. No. 151084, July 02, 2010.