041.Benjamin Bautista vs.

Shirley Unangst and other Unknown Persons

Doctrine:
xxxxx..
The right to appeal is purely statutory right. Not being a natural right or a part of due process,
the right to appeal may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the rules provided
therefor. For this reason, payment of the full amount of the appellate court docket fees and other
lawful fees within the reglementary period is mandatory and jurisdictional. Nevertheless, as this
Court ruled in Aranas vs. Endona, the strict application of the jurisdictional nature of the above rule on
payment of appellate docket fees may be mitigated under exceptional circumstances to better serve the
interest of justice. It is always within the power of this court to suspend its own rules, or to except a
particular case from their operation, whenever the purposes of justice require it.
XXX. , the Court relax the rigid application of the ruler of procedure to afford the parties the
opportunity to fully ventilate their cases on the merits. This is in line with the time-honored principle
that cases shoulc be decided only after giving all the parties the chance to argue their causes and
defenses. For it, is far better to dispose of a case on the merit which is the primordial end, rather than
on a technicality, if it be the case, that may result in justice. The emerging trend in the rulings of this
Court is to afford every party-litigant the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of
his case, free from constraints of technicalities.XXX.
Technicality and procedural imperfections should thus not serve as bases of decisions. In that
way, the ends of justice would better be served. For indeed, the general objective of the procedure is
to facilitate the application of justice to the rival claims of the contending parties, bearing always in
mind that procedure is not to hinder but promote the administration of justice.

FACTS:
* In Nov. 15, 1996, Hamilton Salak rented a car to GAB rent-a –car for 3 consecutive days at
Php1,000/day from owner of GAB, petitioner -Benjamin BAUTISTA. Salak failed to return the car after
three (3) days, prompting petitioner to file a complaint for estafa, violation of BP bldg. 22 and
carnapping.

* On Feb. 2, 1997 Salak and his common-law wife, Shirley UNANGST, respondent,were arrested by the
officers of Crime Investigation Service Group of the PNP while riding the rented car.

* Petioner- Bautista demanded from Salak at CISG Office payment of PHP 232,372 as car rental fees,
fees incurred in locating the car and attorneys fees, capital gains tax and oither incidental expenses.

* Salak and the wife Unangst expressed willingness to pay but since they were then short on
cash, theyproposed to sell to BAUTISTA a house and lot titled in the name of Shirley Unangst0-
respondent, H&L was mortgage to Jojo Lee. Cynthia the wife of Bautista welcome the proposal and
agreed to pay the mortgage loan to Lee at PHP 295,000 which was to be publicly auctioned at Feb. 17,
1997.

* Written agreement was made to formalize the amicable settlement, Cynthia, Salak, Unangst stipulated
that respondent would sell, subject to repurchase her residential property in favor of Cynthia for PHP
525, 372.00 breakdowns;(a) Php 295k amount paid by Cynthia to Lee to release the mortgageproperty ;
(b) Php 232, 372.00 amount due to GAB.

* Also executed a separate Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase with the following terms:
(1) vendor –respondent shall pay capital gains tax, current real estate tax and utility bills;
(2) fails to repurchase within 30 days from date of the deed, respondents must immediately vacate,
And assign it without judicial order.
(3) refusal entitle petitioner to take immediate possession of the property.

* Respodent failed to repurchase , on June 5, 1998 petitioner filed against Unangst before the RTC of
Olongapo City:

(a) Specific Performance/ or recovery of possession.

*June 16, 1998, complaint was amended added prayer for CONSOLIDATION OF OWNERSHIP pursuant to
Art. 1607 of Civil Code. Respondent controverted the allegation and averred in their Answer plaintiff
have NO CAUSE OF ACTION, that DOS was signed under Duress & intimidation employed by petitioner or
if freely given contract of Sale was Simulatede & Fictitious, that sale was as Equitable Mortgage, that
arrear in car rental is only Php 90K and that instanty petition is premature as plaintif have not yet
consolidated ownership of property and also made a COUNTERCLAIM against petitioner for moral
damages and attorneys fees.

* July 29, 2004 The RTC ruled in favor of Petitioner Bautista.

*Respondents failed to interpose a timely appeal. However, on September 10, 2004, respondent
Unangst filed a petition for relief pursuant to Section 38 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure. She
argued that she learned of thedecision of the RTC only on September 6, 2004 when she received a copy
of the motion for execution filed by petitioner.

*Petitioner, on the other hand, moved for the dismissal of respondents petition on the ground that the
latter paid an insufficient sum of P200.00 as docket fees, which was suppose to be Php 1,715.00.
Respondent Unangst argued that it initially paid P200.00 as docket fees as this was the amount assessed
by theClerk of Court of the RTC.

*Nevertheless, the correct amount was subsequently paid by said respondent on February 22, 2005.
The RTC granted the petition for relief. Subsequently, it directed respondents to file a notice of appeal
within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of the order. Accordingly, on February 23, 2005,
respondents filed their notice of appeal.

*CA found that the respondents had perfected an appeal via petition for relief to be able to appeal
judgment even when the fees were paid beyond the period prescribed to bring such action. It also
reversed the decision of the RTC finding the Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase a document of sale
executed by the respondent in favor of the petitioner and in further holding such contract as one of
equitable mortgage (Sales issue).
ISSUE(S): WON,CA committed grave error in finding that the respondent perfected an appeal via Petition
for Relief To be Able to Appeal Judgement even when the proper docket fees were paid beyond the
period prescribed to bring such action.

HELD: No. CA did not commit grave error.

On this issue, respondent counters that the belated payment of proper docket fees was not due to their
fault but to theimproper assessment by the Clerk of Court. Respondent asserts the ruling of the CA that
the court may extend the time for the payment of the docket fees if there is a justifiable reason
for the failure to pay the correct amount. Moreover, respondent argues that petitioner failed to
contest the RTC Order dated February 21, 2004 that allowed the payment of supplementary docket fees.
Petitioner failed to file a motion for reconsideration or a petition for certiorari to the higher court to
question said order.

We agree with respondents. Their failure to pay the correct amount of docket fees was due to a
justifiable reason.

The right to appeal is a purely statutory right. Not being a natural right or a part of due process, the right
to appeal may beexercised only in the manner and in accordance with the rules provided therefor.For
this reason, payment of the full amount of the appellate court docket and other lawful fees within the
reglementary period is mandatory and jurisdictional.

Nevertheless, as this Court ruled in Aranas v. Endona, the strict application of the jurisdictional nature of
the above rule on payment of appellate docket fees may be mitigated under exceptional circumstances
to better serve the interest of justice. It is always within the power of this Court to suspend its own
rules, or to except a particular case from their operation, whenever the purposes of justice require it.

In not a few instances, the Court relaxed the rigid application of the rules of procedure to afford the
parties the opportunity to fully ventilate their cases on the merits. This is in line with the time-honored
principle that cases should be decided only after giving all parties the chance to argue their causes and
defenses. For, it is far better to dispose of a case on the merit which is a primordial end, rather than on a
technicality, if it be the case that may result in injustice. The emerging trend in the rulings of this Court is
to afford every party-litigant the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his
cause, free from the constraints of technicalities.
Considering the foregoing, there is a need to suspend the strict application of the rules so that the
petitioners would be able to fully and finally prosecute their claim on the merits at the appellate
level rather than fail to secure justice on a technicality, for, indeed, the general objective of procedure
is to facilitate the application of justice to the rival claims of contending parties, bearing always in mind
that procedure is not to hinder but to promote the administration of justice.

Wherefore, petition is denied for lack of merit.