LIGAYA ANG, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, AND WARREN T. GUTIERREZ, REPRESENTED BY HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, CARMELITA T. GUTIERREZ, RESPONDENTS.

Ligaya Ang versus Court of Appeals

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, filed by Ligaya Ang against the Court of Appeals and Warren Gutierrez, who is represented by his attorney-in-fact, Carmelita Gutierrez. Ligaya asks the Supreme Court to reverse the appellate court's refusal to grant her motion for extension of time and to admit her petition for review, on the ground that she had failed to pay the appellate docket fees. The case matters because it is a clean, teachable ruling on the right to appeal as a mere statutory privilege, on the mandatory character of docket fee payment under Rule 42, and on how a litigant must prove that payment was in fact made.

Procedural History

Warren Gutierrez filed an action for unlawful detainer against Spouses Ricardo and Ligaya Ang before the Metropolitan Trial Court. The trial court ruled for Warren, ordering the spouses to vacate the property, to pay reasonable compensation for use and occupancy, to pay attorney's fees, and to pay the costs of suit. Spouses Ang appealed to the Regional Trial Court, which affirmed the trial court's decision in its entirety. Ligaya's motion for reconsideration was denied. Ligaya then went up to the Court of Appeals through a motion for extension of time to file a petition for review under Rule 42. The Court of Appeals denied the motion for non-payment of docket fees and declared the case closed and terminated. Ligaya's motion for reconsideration was likewise denied, prompting her to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari.

Facts

Warren Gutierrez owned a ninety-four square meter lot covered by a transfer certificate of title. In December 1998, he sold the lot to Spouses Ang on installment basis, with an initial payment and monthly amortizations, under a contract providing that failure to pay even one monthly installment would extinguish the contract. After paying the initial amount, the spouses refused to settle the balance despite repeated demands. In 2016, Warren filed a complaint for unlawful detainer. The spouses moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter and argued that the contract was not validly cancelled under the Realty Installment Buyer Protection Act.

The Metropolitan Trial Court ruled for Warren, holding that the complaint sufficiently alleged and proved unlawful detainer, and that the installment buyer law was inapplicable because the spouses had failed to pay any installment at all. The Regional Trial Court affirmed in full, noting that the spouses had paid no monthly amortization for seventeen years after signing the contract.

Ligaya elevated the case to the Court of Appeals through a motion for extension of time to file a petition for review under Rule 42. She did not pay the docket fees in full with that motion. Her counsel's messenger claimed that he could not buy postal money orders on the last day, so he allegedly enclosed the docket fees of four thousand seven hundred thirty pesos inside the envelope containing the motion. The Court of Appeals denied the motion. On reconsideration, Ligaya submitted the messenger's affidavit and hinted that the money might have been stolen, and she manifested willingness to pay the fees again. The appellate court's receiving section personnel executed affidavits stating that no postal money order or cash was found in the envelope, and that Ligaya never actually paid again despite her commitment. Reconsideration was denied.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in denying Ligaya's motion for extension of time and refusing to admit her petition for review for non-payment of the required docket and other lawful fees.
• Whether or not Ligaya sufficiently established that the appellate docket fees were duly paid.
• Whether or not the rules on payment of docket fees may be liberally relaxed in her favor.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Rule 42 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 1. How appeal taken; time for filing. — A party desiring to appeal from a decision of the Regional Trial Court rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction may file a verified petition for review with the Court of Appeals, paying at the same time to the clerk of said court the corresponding docket and other lawful fees, depositing the amount of P500.00 for costs, and furnishing the Regional Trial Court and the adverse party with a copy of the petition. The petition shall be filed and served within fifteen (15) days from notice of the decision sought to be reviewed or of the denial of petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in due time after judgment. Upon proper motion and the payment of the full amount of the docket and other lawful fees and the deposit for costs before the expiration of the reglementary period, the Court of Appeals may grant an additional period of fifteen (15) days only within which to file the petition for review. No further extension shall be granted except for the most compelling reason and in no case to exceed fifteen (15) days.

This provision makes full payment of docket fees a condition for the extension Ligaya sought, and she failed to satisfy it.

Section 3 of Rule 42 provides:

Section 3. Effect of failure to comply with requirements. — The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the 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 is the ground the Court of Appeals invoked, and which the Supreme Court sustained.

Section 8 of Rule 42 provides:

Section 8. Perfection of appeal; effect thereof. — (a) Upon the timely filing of a petition for review and the payment of the corresponding docket and other lawful fees, the appeal is deemed perfected as to the petitioner.

This confirms that payment of docket fees is necessary to perfect the appeal.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process; it is a mere statutory privilege that must be exercised in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. The grant of an extension under Rule 42 is discretionary and conditioned on full payment of docket and lawful fees before the expiration of the reglementary period. Non-payment of docket fees is a ground to dismiss the appeal.

On the second issue, the Court held that Ligaya failed to establish payment. The messenger's affidavit merely explained why he chose to enclose the fees with the motion, but there was no evidence such as photocopies of the money bills to prove that cash was actually inside the envelope. The affidavit was suspect because it was executed only after the motion was denied. The appellate court's investigation, corroborated by the receiving section personnel, confirmed that no payment was remitted. Ligaya's willingness to pay again was inconsistent with her claim that she had already paid.

On the third issue, the Court held that no compelling reason existed to relax the rules. The alleged theft was speculative, and the messenger's panic was neither convincing nor adequate, since counsel could have bought postal money orders in advance. The Court stressed that the rules may be relaxed only when persuasive reasons exist to spare a litigant an injustice not commensurate with the procedural failure, and here Ligaya faced no such injustice.

Doctrine

The right to appeal is a statutory privilege, not a natural right or a component of due process, and must be exercised strictly in accordance with the rules. Under Rule 42, full payment of docket and other lawful fees within the reglementary period is mandatory and necessary to perfect an appeal; failure to pay is a ground for dismissal. The failure to pay appellate docket fees within the period warrants discretionary, not automatic, dismissal, and the court exercises that power with circumspection, considering all attendant circumstances. A claim of payment must be substantiated by competent evidence; a bare affidavit executed after denial, unsupported by proof such as photocopies of the money bills, does not establish payment. Liberal application of the rules is reserved for persuasive and compelling reasons.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed. Ligaya Ang lost, and the Court of Appeals' denial of her motion for extension of time and refusal to admit her petition for review were upheld.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the right to appeal is a mere statutory privilege, and full payment of docket fees within the reglementary period is mandatory to perfect an appeal under Rule 42. Examiners use this case to test the mandatory payment of appellate docket fees, the discretionary versus automatic dismissal rule, and the standard for liberally relaxing procedural rules.