Sacolles y Santos v. Aquino

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 236219. July 22, 2019.]

BERNARDO SACOLLES y SANTOS, petitioner, vs.HON. JEZARENE C. AQUINO, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF CAGAYAN, BRANCH 05, TUGUEGARAO CITY, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 22, 2019which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 236219 (Bernardo Sacolles y Santos v. Hon. Jezarene C. Aquino, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Cagayan, Branch 05, Tuguegarao City). — Bernardo Sacolles y Santos (petitioner) comes directly to the Court in this petition for certiorari1 under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, ascribing grave abuse of discretion on the part of Hon. Jezarene C. Aquino (public respondent) in denying his notice of appeal in Criminal Case No. 17475 on the ground of failure to pay proper docket fees. 2

Petitioner was convicted of violation 3 of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, 4 and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of 12 years and one day to 14 years, two months and one day of reclusion temporal and to pay a fine of P300,000.00. 5 He timely filed a notice of appeal 6 but could not simultaneously remit the payment of docket fees due to financial constraints. 7 Petitioner only did so two days after through postal money order checks. HTcADC

Petitioner learned, however, that the Clerk of Court of Branch 5 of Regional Trial Court (RTC) Tuguegarao City, Cagayan refused to admit the postal money order checks on the basis of Supreme Court (SC) Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) Circular No. 11-2015 which allegedly allows appeal fee to be paid only in cash. The Clerk of Court returned the postal money order checks to petitioner, and as a consequence, public respondent issued an Order 8 dated October 5, 2017 denying his notice of appeal.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, 9 arguing that SC OCA Circular No. 11-2005 refers specifically to the collection of fees in election contests involving elective municipal and barangay officials. Public respondent denied the motion for reconsideration, but this time citing SC Administrative Circular No. 35-2004. 10

Petitioner asserts that the payment of docket fees through postal money order checks was in substantial compliance with the basic requirements of his appeal. He invokes that the interests of substantial justice would be served by permitting his appeal. 11

The people, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed its comment. The OSG emphasized that Rule 122 of the Rules of Court does not direct the outright dismissal of a notice of appeal for non-payment of the appeal fee. Also, SC Administrative Circular No. 35-2004 does not prohibit payment through postal money orders and it was only in 2018 via OCA Circular No. 36-2018 when these were made unacceptable. Nevertheless, the OSG prayed for the dismissal of the petition for failure to observe the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.

We grant the petition.

Generally, this Court will dismiss petitions that are directly filed before it if relief can be obtained from the lower courts. Trial courts and the Court of Appeals (CA) are "in the best position to deal with causes in the first instance." They not only resolve questions of law but also determine facts based on the evidence presented before them. 12

We emphasize at this point that there is no disputed fact in this case, however, which would require to be first tried before the CA and would generally impel the Court not to take jurisdiction. 13 Further, the presence of one of the recognized exceptions when immediate resort to this Court may be warranted, justifies a direct invocation of this Court's original jurisdiction. This exception is the patent nullity of the assailed orders of public respondent dismissing the appeal of petitioner. 14 CAIHTE

The rule is that a court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case, unless the docket fees are paid within the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. 15 In several cases, however, the Court entertained certain exceptions due to the peculiar circumstances of the cases, which warrant a relaxation of the rules on payment of docket fees. 16 The failure to pay the required docket fees per se should not necessarily lead to the dismissal of a case. It has long been settled that while the Court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fees, its non-payment at the time of filing of the initiatory pleading does not automatically cause its dismissal, provided that: (a) the fees are paid within a reasonable period; and (b) there was no intention on the part of the claimant to defraud the government. 17

Thus, in Camaso, while the Court acknowledged that a personal check was not among the accepted modes of payment of docket fees under the internal rules of the CA, the Court recognized the attachment of such personal check to the petition as a manifestation of the earnest efforts exerted by the petitioner to pay the required docket fees. The Court found the act in good faith, showing the lack of intention to defraud the government. The logic in Camaso should be applied here.

To recall, petitioner paid the docket fees two days late. The Clerk of Court did not accept the docket fees because it was in the form of postal money order checks. According to the Clerk of Court, it was not an acceptable mode of payment of docket fees under SC OCA Circular No. 11-2005. His appeal having been denied, petitioner moved for reconsideration, correctly pointing out that SC OCA Circular No. 11-2005 is inapplicable because it refers specifically to the collection of fees in election contests involving elective municipal and barangay officials.

Public respondent denied the motion for reconsideration, but the denial was on the basis of SC Administrative Circular No. 35-2004. As correctly pointed out by the OSG, however, SC Administrative Circular No. 35-2004 does not prohibit payment through postal money orders. It was only in 2018 via OCA Circular No. 36-2018 when these were made unacceptable as a mode of payment of docket fees.

Hence, the appeal docket fees of petitioner paid within a reasonable period of time through postal money order checks should have been allowed. While, as a general rule, a review on appeal is not a matter of right but of sound judicial discretion and may be granted only when there are special and important reasons therefor, still it must be remembered that appeal is an essential part of our judicial system. 18 Courts should thus proceed with extreme care so as not to deprive a party of this right. "Laws and rules should be interpreted and applied not in a vacuum or in isolated abstraction but in light of surrounding circumstances and attendant facts in order to afford justice to all." 19 The need to safeguard petitioners' rights should caution courts against motu proprio dismissals of appeals, especially in criminal cases where the liberty of the accused is at stake. The rules allowing motu proprio dismissals merely confer a power and does not impose a duty; and the same is not mandatory but merely directory, which therefore requires a great deal of prudence, considering all the attendant circumstances. 20 aScITE

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Orders dated October 5, 2017 and October 23, 2017 of Branch 5 of the Regional Trial Court, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan in Criminal Case No. 17475 are hereby SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the instant case is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court for further proceedings as discussed in this Resolution.

SO ORDERED."Del Castillo, J., on official leave; Jardeleza J., designated as Acting Working Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2680 dated July 12, 2019.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 3-15.

2.Id. at 39.

3. Possession of marijuana leaves, approximately 12.847 grams.

4. COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002.

5.Rollo, pp. 18-21.

6.Id. at 24-26.

7.Id. at 27-31.

8.Id. at 32.

9.Rollo, pp. 33-38.

10.Id. at 39.

11.Id. at 8-9.

12.Chiquita Brands, Inc. v. Omelio, G.R. No. 189102, June 7, 2017, 826 SCRA 223, 255.

13. See Gios-Samar v. DOTC, G.R. No. 217158, March 12, 2019.

14.Chiquita Brands, Inc. v. Omelio, supra at 256.

15.Bibiana Farms and Mills, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 154284, October 27, 2006, 505 SCRA 588, 593.

16.Id.

17.Camaso v. TSM Shipping, (Phils.), Inc., G.R. No. 223290, November 7, 2016, 807 SCRA 204, 210.

18.Tamayo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 147070, February 17, 2004, 423 SCRA 175.

19.Id. at 180, citing Magsaysay Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111184, August 12, 1996, 260 SCRA 513.

20.Id.