SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 251914. June 22, 2020.]
MUNICIPALITY OF AGOO, LA UNION, REPRESENTED BY ITS FORMER MUNICIPAL MAYOR, SANDRA Y. ERIGUEL, petitioner,vs. JAMES YU DY, DENNIS SY, SIXTO CO, JEANETTE NG, SILVESTRE TORALBA NG, AND MARGARITA CHUA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated22 June 2020which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 251914 (Municipality of Agoo, La Union, represented by its former Municipal Mayor, Sandra Y. Eriguel v. James Yu Dy, Dennis Sy, Sixth Co, Jeanette Ng, Silvestre Toralba Ng, and Margarita Chua). — After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the August 9, 2019 Decision 2 and the February 6, 2020 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 108660 for failure of petitioner Municipality of Agoo, La Union, represented by its former Municipal Mayor, Sandra Y. Eriguel (petitioner), to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in: (a) taking cognizance of the appeal of respondents James Yu Dy, Dennis Sy, Sixto Co, Jeanette Ng, Silvestre Torralba Ng, and Margarita Chua (respondents) despite their non-payment of appellate docket fees within the reglementary period; and (b) upholding the valuation of just compensation recommended by the first panel of commissioners (Panel 1), as reflected in the June 28, 2010 Decision 4 of the Regional Trial Court of Agoo, La Union, Branch 31 (RTC Decision).
As correctly ruled by the CA, aside from the fact that the issue on non-payment of appeal fees had already been settled in CA-G.R. SP No. 121667, which was decided with finality on September 30, 2014, a dismissal of an appeal due to non-payment of appellate docket fees is merely discretionary on the part of the appellate court. 5 On this note, case law instructs that '[n]otwithstanding the mandatory nature of the requirement of payment of appellate docket fees, the Court also recognize[s] that its strict application is qualified by the following: first, failure to pay those fees within the reglementary period allows only discretionary, not automatic, dismissal; second, such power should be used by the [Court] in conjunction with its exercise of sound discretion in accordance with the tenets of justice and fair play, as well as with a great deal of circumspection in consideration of all attendant circumstances,' 6 as in this case, where respondents were able to pay said fees, albeit belatedly.
Further, the CA was also correct in upholding the valuation of just compensation recommended by Panel 1, as reflected in the RTC Decision, which was supported by substantial evidence and met the standards for assessment of land valuation subject of expropriation as provided by law. On the other hand, the recommendation of the second panel of commissioners, which was the basis of the April 27, 2011 Decision of the RTC, was based merely on conjectures, irrelevant assumptions, and dictates of petitioner; and hence, was correctly set aside by the CA.
Finally, the petition is likewise dismissible for petitioner's failure to attach copies of the June 28, 2010 and April 27, 2011 Decisions of the RTC, material portions of the record, pursuant to Section 4 (d), in relation to Section 5, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
SO ORDERED. (Gaerlan, J., designated Additional Member per Special Order No. 2780 dated May 11, 2020, on leave.)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-24.
2.Id. at 28-45. Penned by Associate Justice Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin with Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Danton Q. Bueser, concurring.
3.Id. at 47-49.
4. Not attached to the rollo.
5. Section 1 (c), Rule 50 of the Rules of Court reads:
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
(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[.]
6.National Transmission Corporation v. Heirs of Teodulo Ebesa, 781 Phil. 594, 605 (2016), citing La Salette College v. Pilotin, 463 Phil. 785, 794 (2003).