Tan v. Court of Appeals

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 259935. June 20, 2022.]

NELSON TAN AND EDGAR TAN, petitioners, vs.COURT OF APPEALS-18TH DIVISION CEBU CITY, LARRY ESTACION AND/OR JLT DRESSING PLANT, JIENE LOU ECHIVERRI VIKING, CHICKEN ESSENTIALS PHILIPPINES, INC., NATIONAL MEAT INSPECTION SERVICE (NMIS)-REGION 7, DENR-EMB REGION 7, AND THE MUNICIPALITY OF SIBULAN REPRESENTED BY MAYOR JOSE A. ABIERA, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 20, 2022, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 259935 — NELSON TAN and EDGAR TAN,petitioners, versus COURT OF APPEALS-18TH DIVISION CEBU CITY, LARRY ESTACION and/or JLT DRESSING PLANT, JIENE LOU ECHIVERRI VIKING, CHICKEN ESSENTIALS PHILIPPINES, INC., NATIONAL MEAT INSPECTION SERVICE (NMIS)-REGION 7, DENR-EMB REGION 7, and THE MUNICIPALITY OF SIBULAN represented by MAYOR JOSE A. ABIERA,respondents.

RESOLUTION

After a careful review of the records, the Court DISMISSES outright the instant Rule 65 certiorari petition which assails the following resolutions of the Court of Appeals-Cebu Station, 18th Division (CA): (1) Resolution 1 dated February 22, 2021, which dismisses the appeal filed by herein petitioners docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 12652; and (2) Resolution 2 dated September 29, 2021, which denies petitioners' motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.

The Court finds no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA when it dismissed petitioners' appeal due to non-payment of the Sheriff's Trust Fund (STF) amounting to P1,000.00. Grave abuse of discretion is described as follows:

Grave abuse of discretion exists where an act is performed with a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and so gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility. 3

As aptly invoked by the CA, Section 1 (h), Rule 50 of the Rules of Court grants them the authority to dismiss an appeal should appellant fail to comply with the CA's orders, circulars, or directives without any justifiable cause. The fact that the STF is only a minimal amount and is not considered as part of the filing fees, 4 is not a valid excuse for petitioners' negligence and non-payment of the STF on time. 5

For one, the Court would like to emphasize its long-standing ruling that "the negligence of the clerks, which adversely affect the cases handled by lawyers, is binding upon the latter"; 6 and that the negligence of the counsel generally binds the client. 7 The fact that the STF was not paid on time because the Order of the CA was misplaced by the messenger of petitioners' counsel binds the latter and petitioners. Certainly, law offices are mandated to adopt and arrange matters in order to ensure that official or judicial communications sent by mail would reach the lawyer assigned to the case. 8

For another, although it is true that the STF does not form part of the filing fees, it is still considered as part of legal or lawful fees. 9 Section 1 (c), Rule 50 of the Rules of Court provides that the appellant's failure to pay the docket and other lawful fees may also be considered by the CA as a ground for validly dismissing an appeal. To be sure, the dismissal of an appeal based on this ground is only discretionary on the part of the CA. Nonetheless, the Court is not prepared to rule that the CA gravely abused its discretion considering that before ordering the dismissal of the appeal, the CA gave petitioners the chance to pay the STF through a Minute Resolution. Unfortunately, due to negligence of their counsel, petitioners missed their chance.

Be that as it may, the instant petition should still be dismissed for being procedurally infirm.

Procedural rules are vital in the administration of justice. As elucidated in the case of Philippine Savings Bank v. Papa: 10

Time and again, the Court has reiterated that rules of procedure, especially those prescribing the time within which certain acts must be done, are absolutely indispensable to the prevention of needless delays and to the orderly and speedy discharge of business. While procedural rules may be relaxed in the interest of justice, it is well-settled that these are tools designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases. The relaxation of procedural rules in the interest of justice was never intended to be a license for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity. Liberality in the interpretation and application of the rules can be invoked only in proper cases and under justifiable causes and circumstances. While litigation is not a game of technicalities, every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to ensure an orderly and speedy administration of justice. 11

Verily, the Court is allowed to dispense with technicalities, especially if there is a need to prevent commission of grave injustice. 12 In the present case, petitioners are imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA for strictly applying the procedural rules and for dismissing their appeal based solely on the fact that they failed to pay the STF. Effectively, petitioners herein implore the Court to order the CA to turn a blind eye and tolerate their contravention. The Court notes, however, that even the instant petition is also tainted with procedural infirmity. It is, thus, unfortunate that the Court cannot heed petitioners' plea for leniency and liberality, considering their tendency to trivialize and disregard rules of procedure.

Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as amended, requires petitions for certiorari to be filed not later than 60 days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution, or from notice of the denial of the motion for reconsideration. Failure to comply with this rule may result in the dismissal of the petition. 13

The Court in, Adtel, Inc. v. Valdez, 14 citing Laguna Metts Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 15 held that petitions for certiorari must be filed strictly within the prescribed reglementary period for the following reasons:

The 60-day period is deemed reasonable and sufficient time for a party to mull over and to prepare a petition asserting grave abuse of discretion by a lower court. The period was specifically set to avoid any unreasonable delay that would violate the constitutional rights of the parties to a speedy disposition of their case. 16

Although exception to the general rule is allowed, the same is still subject to the Court's sound discretion, upon filing of a motion for extension, and only under exceptional and meritorious cases. 17

Section 5 (c), Rule 56 of the Rules of Court also requires the petitioner in a case to pay the corresponding docket and other lawful fees at the time of filing of the petition. Again, failure to comply with this rule may result in the dismissal of the case filed before the Court.

According to petitioners, they received the copy of the assailed September 29, 2021 Resolution of the CA denying their motion for reconsideration on October 29, 2021. Accordingly, following Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, petitioners initially had until December 28, 2021 to file their petition for certiorari. However, pursuant to the Court's Administrative Circular Nos. 102-2021 18 and 01-2022 19 extending the deadlines for the filing of any and all pleadings and other court submissions in view of the effects of the super typhoon Odette and the alarming number of corona virus disease 2019 or COVID-19 infections, petitioners' deadline to file the instant petition was moved to February 2, 2022. 20

Section 3, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, as amended, allows filing of pleadings and other court submissions by: (a) submitting personally the original thereof to the court; (b) sending them by registered mail; (c) sending them by accredited courier; or (d) transmitting them by electronic mail or other electronic means as may be authorized by the Court in the places where the court is electronically equipped. The Rules further provides that in case of submissions sent via registered mail or accredited courier, the date of mailing of motion, pleadings, and other court submissions, and payments or deposits, as shown by the post office stamp on the envelope or the registry receipt, shall be considered as the date of their filing, payment, or deposit in court.

In the present case, the subject petition was filed via registered mail and the legal fees were paid through postal money orders. Thus, in accordance with Section 3, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, the date of mailing of the petition and postal money orders should be considered as the date of filing of the petition and payment of the legal fees. In order to be considered as timely and properly filed, the date of mailing indicated in the post office stamp on the envelope of the submission or the registry receipt stamp, should be on or before February 2, 2022.

Based on a review of the records of the case, there is no date indicated in the post office stamp on the envelope of the submission or the registry receipt stamp. As a result, the Court cannot determine the timeliness of filing of the petition, as well as the remittance of legal fees, which are both essential in deciding if the Court can or should give due course to the instant Rule 65 petition.

The Court would like to remind petitioners' counsel that their responsibility to file their clients' submissions via registered mail does not end by the time they deliver the documents to the post office. They should also ensure that the documents are filed properly, i.e., the date of posting is properly indicated in the post office stamp on the envelope or the registry receipt stamp. The Court cannot stress enough the importance of properly indicating the actual date of posting in determining the timeliness of filing the petition and payment of legal fees. As in this case, it may result in the outright dismissal of the petition.

In light of the foregoing, the Court is constrained to dismiss the instant Rule 65 petition. Accordingly, the accompanying prayer for issuance of prohibitory preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order to enjoin the CA from issuing the entry of judgment in CA-G.R. SP No. 12652 is likewise denied.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for the Issuance of Preliminary Prohibitory Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 44-47. Penned by Associate Justice Dorothy P. Montejo-Gonzaga, with Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Bautista G. Corpin, Jr. concurring.

2.Id. at 40-42.

3.Local Government Unit of San Mateo, Isabela v. Miguel Vda. De Guerrero, G.R. No. 214262, February 13, 2019, 892 SCRA 697, 712.

4. OCA Circular No. 36-2018, with subject "Court Resolution Dated 10 January 2018 (Administrative Adjustments on Legal Fees)," dated February 26, 2018. See A.M. No. 17-12-09-SC, titled "Re: Initial Recommendations on Administrative Adjustments from the Judiciary-Wide Committee on Legal Fees," dated January 10, 2018.

5. The Court notes that petitioners only paid the STF after receipt of the CA's resolution dismissing their appeal on March 18, 2021. The STF should have been paid by petitioners on November 2, 2020, 10 days after receipt of the Order of the CA on October 23, 2019.

6.Balgami v. Court of Appeals, 487 Phil. 102, 113 (2004).

7.Id.

8.Id.

9.See OCA Circular No. 36-2018, supra note 4.

10. 823 Phil. 725 (2018).

11.Id. at 737.

12.Tanenglian v. Lorenzo, 573 Phil. 472, 485 (2008).

13. See Adtel, Inc. v. Valdez, 816 Phil. 110 (2017).

14.Id.

15. 611 Phil. 530 (2009).

16.Adtel, Inc. v. Valdez, supra note 13, at 117.

17.Id. at 117-118.

18. "Re: Extension of the Deadlines for the Filing of Any and All Pleadings and Other Court Submissions with the Supreme Court in Light of Super Typhoon Odette," issued on December 20, 2021.

19. "Re: Extension of the Deadlines for the Filing of Any and All Pleadings and Other Court Submissions Falling Due in the Month of January 2022 in All Courts," issued on January 10, 2022.

20. February 1, 2022 was a public holiday.