PANAY RAILWAYS INC., PETITIONER, VS. HEVA MANAGEMENT AND
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PAMPLONA AGRO-INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, AND SPOUSES
CANDELARIA DAYOT AND EDMUNDO DAYOT, RESPONDENTS.[G. R. No. 154061 | January 25, 2012]
FACTS:
On 20 April 1982, petitioner Panay Railways Inc. executed a
Real Estate Mortgage Contract covering several parcels of lands, including Lot
No. 6153, in favor of Traders Royal Bank to secure P20 million worth of loan
and credit accommodations.
Petitioner failed to pay its obligations to TRB, prompting
the bank to extra-judicially foreclose the mortgaged properties including Lot
No. 6153.
On 12 February 1990, TRB filed a Petition for Writ of
Possession against petitioner.
It was only in 1994 that petitioner realized that the
extrajudicial foreclosure included some excluded properties in the mortgage
contract. Thus, on 19 August 1994, it filed a Complaint for Partial Annulment
of Contract to Sell and Deed of Absolute Sale with Addendum; Cancellation of
Title No. T-89624; and Declaration of Ownership of Real Property with
Reconveyance plus Damages.
Meanwhile, respondents filed their respective Motions to
Dismiss on these grounds: (1) petitioner had no legal capacity to sue; (2)
there was a waiver, an abandonment and an extinguishment of petitioner's claim
or demand; (3) petitioner failed to state a cause of action; and (4) an
indispensable party, namely TRB, was not impleaded.
On 18 July 1997, the RTC granted respondents’ Motion to
Dismiss. It held that the Manifestation and Motion filed by petitioner was a
judicial admission of TRB's ownership of the disputed properties.
On 11 August 1997, petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal
without paying the necessary docket fees. Immediately thereafter, respondents
filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal on the ground of nonpayment of docket fees.
On 29 September 1997, the RTC issued an Order dismissing the
appeal citing Sec. 4 of Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Petitioner thereafter moved for a reconsideration of the
Order. On 25 November 1997, the RTC denied the Motion.
On 28 January 1998, petitioner filed with the CA a Petition
for Certiorari and Mandamus under Rule 65 alleging that the RTC had no
jurisdiction to dismiss the Notice of Appeal, and that the trial court had
acted with grave abuse of discretion when it strictly applied procedural rules.
The CA held that
while the failure of petitioner to pay the docket and other lawful fees within
the reglementary period was a ground for the dismissal of the appeal pursuant
to Sec. 1 of Rule 50 of the Revised Rules of Court, the jurisdiction to do so
belonged to the CA and not the trial court. Thus, appellate court ruled that
the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal and set
aside the latter's assailed Order dated 29 September 1997.
Prior to the promulgation of the CA's Decision, the SC
issued A.M. No. 00-2-10-SC which took effect on 1 May 2000, amending Rule 4,
Sec. 7 and Sec. 13 of Rule 41 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court. The circular
expressly provided that trial courts may, motu proprio or upon motion, dismiss
an appeal for being filed out of time or for nonpayment of docket and other
lawful fees within the reglementary period. Subsequently, Circular No. 48-2000
was issued on 29 August 2000 and was addressed to all lower courts.
By virtue of the amendment to Sec. 41, the CA upheld the
questioned Orders of the trial court.
The CA's action prompted petitioner to file a Motion for
Reconsideration alleging that SC Circular No. 48-2000 should not be given
retroactive effect. It also alleged that the CA should consider the case as
exceptionally meritorious. The CA denied petitioner’s MR.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA erred in sustaining RTC’s dismissal of
petitioner’s notice of appeal caused by petitioner’s failure to pay docket fees
RULING:
Statutes and rules regulating the procedure of courts are
considered applicable to actions pending and unresolved at the time of their
passage. Procedural laws and rules are retroactive in that sense and to that
extent. The effect of procedural statutes and rules on the rights of a litigant
may not preclude their retroactive application to pending actions. This
retroactive application does not violate any right of a person adversely
affected. Neither is it constitutionally objectionable. The reason is that, as
a general rule, no vested right may attach to or arise from procedural laws and
rules. It has been held that "a person has no vested right in any
particular remedy, and a litigant cannot insist on the application to the trial
of his case, whether civil or criminal, of any other than the existing rules of
procedure." More so when, as in this case, petitioner admits that it was
not able to pay the docket fees on time. Clearly, there were no substantive
rights to speak of when the RTC dismissed the Notice of Appeal.
The argument that the CA had the exclusive jurisdiction to
dismiss the appeal has no merit. When the SC accordingly amended Sec. 13 of
Rule 41 through A.M. No. 00-2-10-SC, the RTC's dismissal of the action may be
considered to have had the imprimatur of the Court. Thus, the CA committed no
reversible error when it sustained the dismissal of the appeal, taking note of
its directive on the matter prior to the promulgation of its Decision.
Payment of the full amount of the docket fees is an
indispensable step for the perfection of an appeal. The Court acquires
jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fees.
Moreover, the right to appeal is not a natural right and is
not part of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege, which may be
exercised only in accordance with the law.
The term "substantial justice" is not a magic wand
that would automatically compel this Court to suspend procedural rules.
Procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their
non-observance may result in prejudice to a party's substantive rights. Like
all other rules, they are required to be followed, except only for the most
persuasive of reasons when they may be relaxed to relieve litigants of an injustice
not commensurate with the degree of their thoughtlessness in not complying with
the procedure prescribed.
Comments
Post a Comment