Yap v. Legazpi Savings Bank, Inc.

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 241167. September 10, 2018.]

LILIAN R. YAP, VIVIAN R. YAP, AND ROLLY R. YAP, petitioners, vs.LEGAZPI SAVINGS BANK, INC., respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated10 September 2018which reads as follows: cDSAEI

"G.R. No. 241167 (Lilian R. Yap, Vivian R. Yap, and Rolly R. Yap v. Legazpi Savings Bank, Inc.)

After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the April 18, 2018 Decision 2 and the July 31, 2018 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 150880 for failure of petitioners Lilian R. Yap, Vivian R. Yap, and Rolly R. Yap (petitioners) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in denying their petition for certiorari for failure to timely pay the appellate court docket fees.

As correctly ruled by the CA, the payment of the docket fees within the prescribed period 4 is not merely directory but mandatory for the perfection of an appeal. While there are recognized qualifications 5 to the rule, none obtains in this case, considering petitioners' failure to establish by competent evidence their counsel's inadvertence that prevented them from making a timely payment. Neither did they provide a justifiable reason to warrant the relaxation of the Rules of Court. 6 Consequently, the CA cannot be faulted for dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground of petitioners' belated payment of the required docket fees, thereby rendering the October 6, 2016 Decision 7 of the Regional Trial Court of Legazpi City, Branch 10 final and executory.

SO ORDERED." (CARPIO, J., on official, leave; PERLAS-BERNABE, J., designated as Acting Chairperson per S.O. 2592 dated September 5, 2018; REYES, J., JR., J., designated as Additional Member per S.O. No. 2587 dated August 28, 2018) EDCcaS

Very truly yours,

MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 3-23.

2.Id. at 49-56. Penned by Associate Justice Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla with Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, concurring.

3.Id. at 58-59.

4. Section 3, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides:

   Section 3. Period of ordinary appeal. — The appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final order appealed from. Where a record on appeal is required, the appellants shall file a notice of appeal and a record on appeal within thirty (30) days from notice of the judgment or final order. x x x

   The period of appeal shall be interrupted by a timely motion for new trial or reconsideration. No motion for extension of time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration shall be allowed. (Emphasis supplied)

5. The Court has declared that in appealed cases, failure to pay the appellate court docket fee[s] within the prescribed period warrants only discretionary as opposed to automatic dismissal of the appeal and that the court shall exercise its power to dismiss in accordance with the tenets of justice and fair play and with great deal of circumspection considering all attendant circumstances. (See Julian v. Development Bank of the Philippines, 678 Phil. 133, 144 [2011]; citations omitted)

6. See Meatmasters International Corporation v. Lelis Integrated Development Corporation, 492 Phil. 698, 702-703 (2005).

7.Rollo, pp. 77-91. Penned by Presiding Judge Maria Theresa San Juan-Loquillano.