Cu Unjieng V CA

Cu-Unjieng v.
CA and UBP (UNPAID DOCKET FEES)
Doctrine: Well-settled is the rule that payment of the docket and other legal fees within the prescribed
period is both mandatory and jurisdictional, noncompliance of which is fatal to an appeal.
FACTS: Petitioner in this case seeks the reversal of the issuances of the CA: dismissing petitioner’s
appeal for non-payment of docket and other lawful fees, petitioner’s appeal from an earlier decision of
the RTC which dismissed his complaint for specific performance and damages against respondent UBP
and that which dismissed petitioner’s MFR and ordered expunged the appellant’s brief.
Respondent UBP is the owner of a parcel of land and registered under TCT. UBP caused the posting on
the bulletin boards of a 3-page list acquired realty assets available for sale. The said parcel of land was
offered to be sold for 2,200,000. Petitioner then, thru a letter and addressed to the UBP’s manager
Acquired Assets Department, offered to buy the subject property for a lesser amount (2,078,305.50);
payable 50% DP with the balance to be paid in equal monthly installments over a period of 2 years.
Petitioner explained that his lesser offer was on account of 5 tenants occupying the subject land who
were allegedly demanding 500K to voluntarily vacate the same.
As proof of petitioner’s intent, he rendered PCIB Check No. 565287 for P103, 915.27, purportedly
representing 10% of the 50% DP as earnest money or deposit, which UBP acknowledged. UBP rejected
petitioner’s offer as shown by a letter, stating that his offer could not possibly be acted upon on account
of the legal division’s opinion that sales of land covered by CARP without prior DAR approval are
considered null and void. UBP advised petitioner to pick up the refund of his earnest money.
Petitioner then thru his counsel, made a formal demand for the bank to comply with its obligation to
transfer and deliver the title of the subject property to him by executing the proper deed of conveyance.
The said letter was rejected by the bank reiterating its legal ground.
Petitioner then filed his complaint for Specific Performance and Damages against UBP, impleading as co-
defendant the RD of Bulacan.
After due proceedings, the trial court found to perfected contract of sale between the parties, thus, it
was dismissed. Petitioner filed with the RTC a Notice of Appeal. The CA, however, dismissed petitioner’s
appeal for non-payment of the required docket and other lawful fees.
Petitioner filed a MFR which was denied and even expunged from the record the appellant’s brief.
ISSUE: Whether or not failure to pay the appeal docket fees on time is a non-fatal lapse or a non-
jurisdictional defect which the CA should have ignored in order to attain substantial justice
HELD: No. The right to appeal is merely statutory and a party seeking to avail of that right must comply
with the statute or rules. Rule 41, Sec 4 of the 1997 Rules of Procedure provides,
SEC. 4. Appellate court docket and other lawful fees. — Within the period for taking an appeal,
the appellant shall pay to the clerk of the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed
from, the full amount of the appellate court docket and other lawful fees. Proof of payment of said fees
shall be transmitted to the appellate court together with the original record or the record on appeal.
Well-settled is the rule that payment of the docket and other legal fees within the prescribed period is
both mandatory and jurisdictional, noncompliance of which is fatal to an appeal. An ordinary appeal
from a decision or final order of the RTC to the CA must be made within 15 days from notice. The full
amount of the appellate court docket and other lawful fees must be paid to the clerk of court which
rendered the final order appealed from. Without such payment, the appeal is not perfected and the
appellate court does not acquire jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, thereby rendering the decision
sought to be appealed final and executory.
Furthermore, Sec 1(c) of Rule 50 provides that failure of the appellant to pay the docket and other
lawful fees as provided in Sec. 4 of Rule 41 is a ground for dismissal of appeal.
Thus, the SC has sustained the CA’s dismissal on technical grounds under the said provisions unless
considerations of equity and substantial justice present cogent reason to hold otherwise.
In this case, payment of the appellate docket fees was effected by petitioner only after 4 months
following the expiration of the reglementary period to take an appeal. Hence, the petition is denied.

Cu Unjieng V CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cu Unjieng V CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cu Unjieng V CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cu-Unjieng v.

CA and UBP (UNPAID DOCKET FEES)

You might also like