FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 255013. June 6, 2021.]
MARLON B. LEONARDO, petitioner,vs. EVELYN L. PEZA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 6, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 255013 (Marlon B. Leonardo v. Evelyn L. Peza). — The petitioner's motion for an extension of thirty (30) days within which to file a petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period. HTcADC
This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assails the Resolution 2 dated June 30, 2020 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 110494 which dismissed the appeal for petitioner's failure to present proof of payment of the required docket fees. Also assailed is the Resolution 3 dated December 17, 2020 denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
Facts of the Case
Respondent Evelyn L. Peza filed a Petition for the Issuance of letters of Administration 4 over the estate of her parents, Fe Bernabe Leonardo (Fe) and Marciano Placido Leonardo (Marciano) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City, Branch 129, docketed as Sp. Proc. Case No. C-4672. She alleged that she is one of the eight children of Fe and Marciano, namely: Jeffrey, Marlon B. Leonardo (petitioner), Michael, Jonathan, Elizabeth, Aileen and Aldrin. 5 Respondent mentioned in the petition the real properties left by their parents and Marciano's business, a sole proprietorship under the name Benzor International Manpower Services. Respondents averred that she is qualified as a next of kin of Fe and Marciano and may be issued letters of administration in her favor. 6
Petitioner opposed the petition. 7 He claimed that respondent omitted or concealed the other real properties of Fe and Marciano Leonardo 8 as stated in the Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate of the Late Marciano 9 consisting of 52 land/residential properties and four condominium/residential units. 10 This deliberate omission or misrepresentation, according to petitioner, can be construed as unwillingness on respondent's part to administer or manage the other properties, similar to incompetence which is a ground for opposing the issuance of letters of administration under Section 4, Rule 79 of the Rules of Court. He asserted that he has all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications to act as administrator; hence, the letters of administration be instead issued in his favor. 11
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
On April 5, 2017, the RTC granted the petition and issued the letters of administration in favor of respondent conditioned upon the posting of the bond in the amount of P1,000,000.00. 12
Petitioner, through registered mail, filed a Notice of Appeal 13 with attached Record on Appeal 14 before the RTC.
In its June 15, 2017 Order, the RTC favorable acted on petitioner's appeal. Its Officer-in-Charge transmitted the entire records of Sp. Proc. Case No. C-4672 to the CA. 15
The CA found, however, that the records lack proof of payment of the required docket fees. Thus, the CA directed the RTC Branch Clerk of Court to submit the official receipt proving payment of the docket fees. 16
Meanwhile, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss 17 arguing that the absence of the official receipt shows that petitioner failed to pay the required docket fees. 18 She made reference to the RTC's Certification 19 dated January 14, 2019 attesting that it has no record of the supposed official receipt. 20
The Officer-in-Charge of the RTC, Ginger Darling C. Roscom, filed her compliance confirming that petitioner filed the Notice of Appeal without any official receipt of payment of the docket fees. 21
Petitioner maintained that he had paid the required docket fees. The messenger of his counsel had enclosed the amount of P4,030.00 in the Notice of Appeal. He emphasized that the Notice of Appeal contains photocopies of four P1000.00 bills, one P20.00 bill, and one P10.00 coin. He claimed that the P4,030 might have been lost in transit considering that he filed the Notice of Appeal through registered mail. 22
Juan L. Chavez, the messenger of petitioner's counsel, submitted an Affidavit stating that he put the P4,030.00 in a white envelope and stapled it in the original copy of the Notice of Appeal. He declared that he filed the Notice of Appeal and the P4,030.00 through registered mail.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
In the Resolution 23 dated June 30, 2020, the CA dismissed the appeal for failure of petitioner to prove that he had paid the required docket fees. 24 It held that the RTC certified that it has no record of the official receipt; the Branch Clerk of Court did not acknowledge that petitioner paid the docket fee; and petitioner failed to substantially prove that he had paid the docket fee through registered mail. While there is evidence that petitioner filed the Notice of Appeal through registered mail, there is no sufficient proof that he had enclosed the P4,030.00 in his appeal. Also, petitioner's manifestation to repay the P4,030.00 is inconsistent with his assertion that he had already paid the docket fee through registered mail. 25
Petitioner moved for reconsideration but it was denied in the Resolution 26 dated December 17, 2020.
Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 filed by petitioner.
The issue for resolution is whether the CA properly dismissed petitioner's appeal for his failure to prove that he had paid the required docket fees. DETACa
Petitioner's Arguments
Petitioner maintains that the required appeal fee was remitted. The Notice of Appeal with the attached Record on Appeal were filed on May 25, 2017 through registered mail addressed to the RTC of Caloocan City. The cash of P4,030.00 was in a white letter envelope. All these were placed in a brown envelope. The Affidavit of Chavez should have been given credence because it was he who personally prepared the envelope with the Notice of Appeal and the money, and mailed the same. The photocopies of the bills were submitted not as a substitute for the fee paid or proof of payment but only as a matter of record of the actual bills enclosed in the envelope. It is difficult, if not impossible, for petitioner to prove the unexplained disappearance of the money. Petitioner asserts that the law office has not had any experience of "losing" its appeal fee. In any case, petitioner should not be penalized for the possible mishandling, and hopefully not pilferage, of the appeal fee. 27 It is petitioner's humble plea that that the Notice of Appeal and Record on Appeal be reinstated and the case be resolved on the merits. 28
Ruling of the Court
The petition is granted.
The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. One who seeks to avail of the right to appeal must comply strictly with the requirements of the rules. Failure to do so often leads to the loss of the right to appeal. 29
Basically, there are three requirements in order to perfect an appeal: (1) the filing of a notice of appeal; (2) the payment of docket and other legal fees; and (3) in some cases, the filing of a record on appeal, all of which must be done within the period allowed for filing an appeal. Failure to observe any of these requirements is fatal to one's appeal. 30 However, the non-payment of docket fees as a ground to dismiss the appeal had been qualified by the Court and declared that first, the failure to pay the appellate court docket fee within the reglementary period warrants only discretionary as opposed to automatic dismissal of the appeal; and second, the court shall exercise its power to dismiss in accordance with the tenets of justice and fair play and with a great deal of circumspection considering all attendant circumstances. 31
In the interest of justice and fair play and considering all attendant circumstances, the Court reinstates the appeal and directs the CA to decide petitioner's appeal on the merits, conditioned upon the payment of the docket fees by petitioner.
The Court is convinced with petitioner's explanation that the docket fees was enclosed inside the envelope containing the Notice of Appeal which was filed through registered mail. Although this manner of paying docket fees should be disallowed, it should be emphasized that there is no specific provision in the Rules of Court prescribing the manner of payment of docket or appeal fees. 32 The Court sees no rhyme nor reason why petitioner would attach photocopies of bills if not for the purpose of showing the actual cash paid as docket fees. The Notice of Appeal contains photocopies of four P1000.00 bills, one P20.00 bill, and one P10.00 coin. More often than not, counsels are aware of the docket fees required to be paid to the courts. 33 Hence, the exact amount of P4,030.00 as docket fees for the appeal. Also, the Notice of Appeal was indeed received by the RTC within the prescribed period to appeal, as the records of the proceedings were transmitted to the CA. Whatever happened in transit as to the cash of P4,030.00, there is no way for petitioner, or even the Court, to know how it was lost.
Further, petitioner's manifestation to repay the docket fee cannot be construed as an admission of his part that he did not pay the same. On the contrary, it demonstrates his intention to pursue his cause, and willingness to abide by the rules by paying the docket fees to perfect his appeal.
In several instances, the Court has allowed the relaxation of the rule on non-payment of docket fees in order to afford the parties the opportunity to fully ventilate their cases on the merits. 34 In any event, rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. There is a greater demand for resolving genuine disputes fairly and equitably, for it is far better to dispose of a case on the merits which is a primordial end, rather than on a technicality that may result in injustice. 35
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolutions dated June 30, 2020 and December 17, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 110494 are SETASIDE. Petitioner Marlon B. Leonardo's appeal is reinstated and the Court of Appeals is DIRECTED to resolve the merits of the appeal, subject to the payment by petitioner Marlon B. Leonardo of the corresponding docket fees within fifteen (15) days from notice of this Resolution.
The respondent's motion to dismiss, praying that the petition be dismissed for the obvious lack of verification and certification by petitioner Marlon B. Leonardo such that the petition should be considered an unsigned pleading, is NOTED. aDSIHc
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
by:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 9-33.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig, with Associate Justices Danton Q. Bueser and Alfredo D. Ampuan; id. at 291-297.
3. Penned by Associate Justice Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig, with Associate Justices Danton Q. Bueser and Alfredo D. Ampuan; id. at 327-328.
4.Id. at 43-47.
5.Id. at 62.
6.Id. at 46-47.
7.Id. at 55-59.
8.Id. at 56.
9.Id. at 88-91.
10.Id.
11.Id. at 57-58.
12.Id. at 214-223.
13.Id. at 127-129.
14.Id. at 132-136.
15.Id. at 228.
16.Id. at 250.
17.Id. at 227-231.
18.Id. at 228-229.
19.Id. at 258.
20.Id.
21.Id. at 249.
22.Id. at 262-263.
23.Supra note 2.
24.Rollo, pp. 297.
25.Id. at 295-297.
26.Id. at 327-328.
27.Id. at 18-19.
28.Id. at 32.
29.Ang v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 238203, September 3, 2020.
30.National Transmission Corporation v. Heirs of Ebesa, 781 Phil. 594, 603 (2016).
31.Julian v. Development Bank of the Phils., 678 Phil. 133, 144 (2011).
32.Buenaflor v. Court of Appeals, 400 Phil. 395 (2000).
33.Id.
34.Heirs of Reinoso, Sr. v. Court of Appeals, 669 Phil. 272, 280.
35.Id. at 281.