8/21/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME429

VOL. 429, MAY 27, 2004 439

Navarro vs. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company

*
G.R. No. 138031. May 27, 2004.

ANTONIO NAVARRO and GRAHMMS, INC., petitioners,

vs. METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, THE
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, and THE HON. ZEUS C.
ABROGAR (Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of
Makati City, Branch 150), respondents.

Remedial Law Docket Fees Appeals Payment of docket fees

within the prescribed period is mandatory for the perfection of an
appeal.Time and time again, this Court has consistently held
that the payment of docket fees within the prescribed period is
mandatory for the perfection of an appeal. Without such payment,
the appeal is not perfected. The appellate court does not acquire
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the ac

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

440

440 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Navarro vs. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company

tion and the decision sought to be appealed from becomes final

and executory.
Same Same Same Appeal is not a right but a mere statutory
privilege Appeal is perfected by filing a notice of appeal thereof
with the court that rendered the judgment or final order and by
serving a copy of that notice upon the adverse party and by paying
within the same 15 day period the full amount of the appellate
court docket and other lawful fees to the clerk of court.It bears

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156ac9a7ca2ef8441fb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/11
8/21/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME429

stressing that appeal is not a right, but a mere statutory

privilege. Corollary to this principle is that the appeal must be
exercised strictly in accordance with the provisions set by law.
Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides that an appeal to the CA
from a case decided by the RTC in the exercise of the latters
original jurisdiction shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from
the notice of judgment or final order appealed from. Such appeal
is perfected by filing a notice of appeal thereof with the court that
rendered the judgment or final order and, by serving a copy of
that notice upon the adverse party, and by paying within this
same period the full amount of the appellate court docket and
other lawful fees to the clerk of court.
Same Same Same Payment of the appellate docket and other
lawful fees is not a mere technicality of law or procedure It is an
essential requirement without which the decision or final order
appealed from would become final and executory as if no appeal
was filed at all.The payment of the docket fees within this
period is a condition sine qua non to the perfection of the appeal.
Contrary to the petitioners predication, the payment of the
appellate docket and other lawful fees is not a mere technicality of
law or procedure. It is an essential requirement, without which
the decision or final order appealed from would become final and
executory as if no appeal was filed at all.
Same Civil Procedure Concomitant to a liberal interpretation
of the rules of procedure should be an effort on the part of the party
invoking liberality to adequately explain his failure to abide by the
rules.We have consistently ruled that litigation is not a game of
technicalities and that every case must be prosecuted in
accordance with the prescribed procedure so that issues may be
properly presented and justly resolved. However, we have also
ruled that rules of procedure must be faithfully followed except
only when, for persuasive and weighting reasons, they may be
relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice commensurate with his
failure to comply with the prescribed procedure. Concomitant to a
liberal interpretation of the rules of procedure should be an effort
on the part of the party invoking liberality to adequately explain
his failure to abide by the rules.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.

441

VOL. 429, MAY 27, 2004 441

Navarro vs. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156ac9a7ca2ef8441fb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/11
8/21/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME429

Nelson A. Loyola for petitioner.

Alfonso M. Cruz Law Offices for respondent.

CALLEJO, SR., J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 451 of

the Rules of Court, as amended, assailing the Decision of
the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the denial by the
Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 150, in Civil
Case No. 942913, of the petitioners appeal for non
payment of docket fees, as well as the appellate courts
March 29, 1999 Resolution which denied the petitioners
motion for reconsideration.
The facts are undisputed:
On November 3, 1994, the private respondent
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (respondent
MBTC) filed with the RTC of Makati City a petition for the
judicial foreclosure of the real
2
estate mortgage executed by
the petitioners in its favor. The case was docketed as Civil
Case No. 942913 and was raffled to Branch 150 of the
same court.
After due proceedings,
3
the RTC rendered judgment on
January 16, 1998, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, the court hereby grants the right of the plaintiff

bank to foreclose the properties belonging to defendant Antonio
Navarro covered by TCT Nos. 155256, 155257, 155258
particularly described as follows:
...
to be sold at public auction the proceeds of which to be applied
in payment of the P3,500,000.00 loan, plus interest and penalty
charges until fully paid. In case of deficiency on the proceeds of
the aforesaid sale, execution

_______________

1 CAG.R. SP No. 48131. Penned by Associate Justice Portia

AlioHormachuelos with Associate Justices Buenaventura J. Guerrero and Martin
S. Villarama, Jr. concurring.
2 Records, pp. 18.
3 Penned by Judge Zeus C. Abrogar of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City,
Branch 150 Records, pp. 789797.

442

442 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Navarro vs. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156ac9a7ca2ef8441fb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/11
8/21/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME429

on the defendants property shall be implemented. Likewise, 4

10%
of the total amount due shall be awarded as attorneys fees.

The petitioners received a copy of the Decision on February

10, 1998 and on February 18,5 1998 filed a Motion for
Reconsideration of the decision. On March 25, 1998, 6
the
trial court issued an Order denying the said motion. The
petitioners received their copy of the order on April 7, 1998.
On April 14, 1998, the last day of the reglementary
period, 7 the petitioners filed with the RTC a Notice of
Appeal from its January 16, 1998 Decision and March 25,
1998 Order. However, the petitioners failed to pay the
requisite docket and other lawful fees.
On April 21, 1998, the respondent MBTC filed a Motion
to Deny Due 8
Course to Notice of Appeal with Motion for
Execution on the ground that the notice of appeal was not
timely filed. Acting on the motion, the RTC, while ruling in
favor of the timeliness of the petitioners notice of appeal,
nevertheless denied the appeal for not being accompanied
by the required
9
docket fees. Hence, in its Order dated May
27, 1998, the RTC granted the motion of the respondents
for the issuance of a writ.of execution for the enforcement
of the decision. The RTC held that:

. . . From the sequence of dates and events, it is clear that

defendants filed their Notice of Appeal within the reglementary
period from the date of their receipt of the denial of their motion
for reconsideration since they had still seven days left to file an
appeal. However, since Section 4, Rule 41 of the New Rules of
Civil Procedure, states that:

Within the period for taking an appeal, the appellant shall pay to the
clerk of 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.

It is also incumbent upon the appellants to pay the required

appeal fee within the reglementary period. Up to the present, the
court has not yet

_______________

4 Records, pp. 795797.

5 Id., at pp. 798822.
6 Id., at p. 859.
7 Id., at pp. 860861.
8 Id., at pp. 862865.
9 Id., at pp. 876877.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156ac9a7ca2ef8441fb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/11
8/21/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME429

443

VOL. 429, MAY 27, 2004 443

Navarro vs. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company

received any evidence of payment of the appellate docket fee to be

attached to the record of this case, in accordance with the New
Rules, to the prejudice of the other party.
Wherefore, from the foregoing, the notice of appeal is hereby
DENIED for not being accompanied by the required docket fees,
and let a writ of execution be issued for the enforcement of the
decision.

On June 2, 1998,
10
the RTC correspondingly issued the Writ
of Execution prayed for by the respondent MBTC.
On June 11, 1998, the counsel for the petitioners
informed the court by letter that on June 9, 1998, he sent
his messenger to the court to pay the docket fees on 11the
notice of appeal but was refused by the receiving clerk. In
a LetterResponse dated June 19, 1998, the trial court
instructed the counsel for the petitioners, to wit:

In response to your letter dated June 11, 1998, please be informed

that as a matter of policy, courts do not receive payments of
docket fees. This should be made to the Office of the Clerk of
Court, with only the official receipts and/or proofs of payment
filed in court to be attached to the record of the case to be
forwarded to the Court of Appeals. Moreover, the court has
already resolved all pending incidents before it, the last one in its
Order dated May 27, 1998 so that, if the receiving clerk refused
receipt of the docket fee on the nature (sic) of
12
appeal, it is only in
consonance with the abovementioned order.

On June 29, 1998, the petitioner filed with the CA a

petition for certiorari assailing the May 27, 1998 Order of
the RTC for having been issued with grave abuse13 of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. In
their reply to the comment, the petitioners, for the first
time, proffered to the appellate court an explanation for
their admitted failure to pay the appellate docket fees
within the prescribed reglementary period. The petitioners,
thus, averred:

6. Petitioners failure to pay the appellate docket fee is not

without a valid explanation. At the time of the filing of Notice of
Appeal, petitioners counsels lone secretary, without informing in
advance the under

_______________

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156ac9a7ca2ef8441fb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/11
8/21/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME429

10 Id., at pp. 878879.

11 Id., at p. 880.
12 Id., at p. 882.
13 The petition was docketed as CAG.R. SP No. 48131 CA Rollo, pp. 231.

444

444 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Navarro vs. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company

signed, decided to migrate to another country for greener

pasture, leaving the undersigned the responsibility to tend to all
the cases in his office. The undersigneds operation was literally
disabled and in shambles
7. Thus, when the undersigned discovered this inadvertence,
he immediately tried to remedy the situation and can only hope
that this Honorable
14
Court can understand the undersigneds
predicament.

On September 30, 1998, the CA promulgated

15
its Decision
dismissing the petitioners
16
appeal. The petitioners
17
motion
for reconsideration and its supplement thereto was,
likewise, denied by the18
appellate court in its Resolution
dated March 29, 1999.
Hence, the petition at bar.
The petitioners assail the decision of the CA grounded
on the following:

A. THE APPEAL OF PETITIONER WAS DULY AND

SEASONABLY PERFECTED HENCE, THE HON.
CA ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF
JURISDICTION IN RENDERING THE ASSAILED
DECISION (ANNEX M) THAT SUSTAINED THE
ORDER OF THE RTC DENYING, DISALLOWING
AND DISMISSING THE APPEAL
B. THE ORDER [OF THE RTC] DIRECTING THE
EXECUTION OF ITS JUDGMENT [BEFORE THE
EXPIRY OF THE 90DAY PERIOD FROM
RECEIPT THEREOF BY THE PETITIONERS] IS
PREMATURE, BECAUSE (1) THE COURT HAD
LOST JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE UPON
THE FILING OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL AND
(2) RULE 68 PROVIDES FOR THE PROCEDURE
HOW TO ENFORCE A JUDGMENT IN A
PETITION FOR FORECLOSURE
C. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED
IN SUSTAINING THE ORDER OF THE RTC
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156ac9a7ca2ef8441fb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/11
8/21/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME429

THAT DISMISSED THE THIRDPARTY

COMPLAINT OF PETITIONER NAVARRO
AGAINST THE ERRANT AND FRAUDULENT
BRANCH MANAGER DANILO MENESES OF
RESPONDENT METROBANK

_______________

14 CA Rollo, p. 164.
15 Id., at pp. 177180.
16 Id., at pp. 181193.
17 Id., at pp. 206212.
18 Id., at pp. 226227.

445

VOL. 429, MAY 27, 2004 445

Navarro vs. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company

D. THE JUDGMENT BINDING THE CONJUGAL

PROPERTY OF SPOUSES CLARITA PARAGAS
AND ANTONIO NAVARRO ON THE ALLEGED
DEBT19 OF THE HUSBAND IS AGAINST THE
LAW

The petition is denied due course.

The petitioners contend that the appellate court erred in
sustaining the RTCs denial of their notice of appeal on the
ground of their failure to pay the docket and other legal
fees. The petitioners aver that the payment of the said fees
is not a prerequisite for the perfection of an appeal. They
contend that having seasonably filed their notice of appeal
from the RTCs January 16, 1998 Decision and March 25,
1998 Order, the appeal therefrom was deemed perfected
thus, divesting the RTC of jurisdiction over the case.
Hence, when the RTC issued its March 25, 1998 Order, it
had no jurisdiction to do so. The petitioners cited20
the
rulings of this Court in Santos v. Court of Appeals
21
and in
Manila Mandarin Employees Union v. NLRC to bolster its
stance.
We are not convinced. Time and time again, this Court
has consistently held that the payment of docket fees
within the prescribed period is mandatory for the
perfection of an appeal. Without such payment, the appeal
is not perfected. The appellate court does not acquire
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action and the

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156ac9a7ca2ef8441fb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/11
8/21/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME429

decision sought
22
to be appealed from becomes final and
executory.
It bears stressing
23
that appeal is not a right, but a mere
statutory privilege. Corollary to this principle is that the
appeal must be exercised strictly in accordance with the
provisions set by law. Rule 41 of the Rules of Court
provides that an appeal to the CA from a case decided by
the RTC in the exercise of the latters original jurisdiction
shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from the notice of
judgment or final order appealed from. Such appeal is
perfected by filing a notice of appeal thereof with the court
that rendered the judgment or final order and, by serving a
copy of that notice upon

_______________

19 Rollo, p. 34.
20 253 SCRA 632 (1996).
21 264 SCRA 320 (1996).
22 Alfonso v. Andres, 390 SCRA 465 (2002).
23 Badillo v. Tayag, 400 SCRA 494 (2003).

446

446 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Navarro vs. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company

24
the adverse party, and by paying within this same period
the full amount of the appellate 25
court docket and other
lawful fees to the clerk of court.
The payment of the docket fees within this period is a
condition sine qua non to the perfection of the appeal.
Contrary to the petitioners predication, the payment of the
appellate docket and other lawful fees is not a mere
technicality of law or procedure. It is an essential
requirement, without which the decision or final order
appealed from would become final and executory as if no
appeal was filed at all.
We have consistently ruled that litigation is not a game
of technicalities and that every case must be prosecuted in
accordance with the prescribed procedure so 26 that issues
may be properly presented and justly resolved. However,
we have also ruled that rules of procedure must be
faithfully followed except only when, for persuasive and
weighting reasons, they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant
of an injustice commensurate with his failure to comply
with the prescribed procedure. Concomitant to a liberal

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156ac9a7ca2ef8441fb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/11
8/21/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME429

interpretation of the rules of procedure should be an effort

on the part of the

_______________

24 The pertinent provisions of Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court

provides:

SEC. 2. Modes of appeal.

(a) Ordinary appeal.The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by
the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken
by filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or final
order appealed from and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party. . . .
SEC. 3. Period of ordinary appeal.The appeal shall be taken within fifteen
(15) days from notice of the judgment or final order appealed from. . . .

25 Section 4 of Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court states:

SEC. 4. Appellate court docket and other lawful fees.Within the period for taking
an appeal, the appellant shall pay to the clerk of 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.

26 Sebastian v. Morales, 397 SCRA 549 (2003).

447

VOL. 429, MAY 27, 2004 447

Navarro vs. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company

party invoking liberality

27
to adequately explain his failure to
abide by the rules.
Our ruling in this case is not antithetical
28
to our ruling in
La Salette College v. Victor Pilotin, viz.:

Notwithstanding the mandatory nature of the requirement of

payment of appellate docket fees, we also recognize that its strict
application is qualified by the following: first, failure to pay those
fees within the reglementary period allows only discretionary, not
automatic, dismissal second, such power should be used by the
court in conjunction with its exercise of sound discretion in
accordance with the tenets of justice and fair play, as well as with
a great deal of circumspection in consideration of all attendant
circumstances.
In Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority v. Mangubat,
the payment of the docket fees was delayed by six (6) days, but
the late payment was accepted, because the party showed
willingness to abide by the Rules by immediately paying those
fees. Yambao v. Court of Appeals, saw us again relaxing the Rules
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156ac9a7ca2ef8441fb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/11
8/21/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME429

when we declared therein that the appellate court may extend

the time for the payment of the docket fees if appellant is able to
show that there is a justifiable reason for . . . the failure to pay
the correct amount of docket fees within the prescribed period,
like fraud, accident, mistake, excusable negligence, or a similar
supervening casualty, without fault on the part of the appellant.

In the present case, the petitioners failed to establish any

sufficient and satisfactory reason to warrant a relaxation of
the mandatory rule on the payment of appellate docket and
other lawful fees. The explanation given by the petitioners
counsel for the nonpayment was that his secretary, who
migrated to another country, inadvertently failed to pay
the docket and other fees when she filed the petitioners
notice of appeal with the court. The said counsel came to
know of the inadvertence only when he received a copy of
the RTCs May 27, 1998 Order which denied due course to
the appeal for failure to pay the required docket fees. The
explication deserves scant consideration. We have reviewed
the records and find that the petitioners failed to show how
and when their counsels secretary left the country. Neither
did the petitioners submit any explanation why their
counsel failed to ascertain immediately after April 14, 1998
if the requisite appellate docket and other

_______________

27 Cresenciano Duremdes v. Agustin Duremdes, G.R. No. 138256,

November 12, 2003, 415 SCRA 684.
28 G.R. No. 149227, December 11, 2003, 415 SCRA 380.

448

448 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Navarro vs. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company

lawful fees had been paid by the said secretary before her
departure.
Thus, putting the blame on the counsels secretary for
her failure to perfect the petitioners appeal to the CA is
unjustified. As aptly declared by the appellate court:

The reason given for movants failure to pay the docket fees, i.e.,
that their counsels employee had left his office has been
debunked by the Supreme Court as a hackneyed and habitual
subterfuge employed by litigants who fail to observe the
procedural requirements prescribed by the Rules of Court.
(Lanting vs. Guevarra, 27 SCRA 974) The Supreme Court has also

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156ac9a7ca2ef8441fb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/11
8/21/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME429

often repeated that the negligence of clerks which adversely affect

the case handled by lawyers, is binding upon the latter. (Negros
29
Stevedoring Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 162 SCRA 371.)

Indeed, this Court has admonished law offices to adopt a

system of distributing and receiving pleadings and notices,
so that the lawyers
30
will be promptly informed of the status
of their cases. Hence, the negligence of clerks which
adversely affect the cases handled by lawyers is binding
upon the latter.
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is
hereby DENIED. The assailed decision of the Court of
Appeals is AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioners.
SO ORDERED.

Quisumbing (Actg. Chairman), AustriaMartinez

and Tinga, JJ., concur.
Puno (Chairman), J., On Official Leave.

Petition denied, assailed decision affirmed.

Note.The timely filing of correct docket fees is

jurisdictional but as shown by the Supreme Court
decisions, considerations of law and equity come into the
picture. (Yuchengco vs. Republic, 333 SCRA 368 [2000])

o0o

_______________

29 Rollo, p. 205.
30 Sarraga, Sr. v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank, 393
SCRA 566 (2002).

449

Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156ac9a7ca2ef8441fb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/11