Payment of appeal fee is jurisdictional

Dear PAO,

I recently discovered that a parcel of land belonging to my parents was fraudulently sold to a developer. Because of this, we filed a case to declare the sale null and void. The developer who bought the property intervened in the case. Fortunately, the case was decided in our favor. Despite our win, the developer filed a Notice of Appeal but failed to file the appeal fee within the reglementary period. In fact, the appeal fee was paid seven days after the reglementary period. When questioned, they merely stated that it was mere inadvertence and that the appeal should still be given due course in favor of substantial justice. They prayed for the relaxation of the rules of procedure. Is this proper?

Sonia

Dear Sonia,

Please be informed of the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Francis M. Zosa et al. v. Consilium, Inc. (GR 196765, Sept. 19, 2018, Ponente: Chief Justice Teresita Leonardo-de Castro), where it was provided that:

«Fundamental is the rule that the provisions of the law and the rules concerning the manner and period of appeal are mandatory and jurisdictional requirements; hence, cannot simply be discounted under the guise of liberal construction. But even if we were to apply liberality as prayed for, it is not a magic word that once invoked will automatically be considered as a mitigating circumstance in favor of the party invoking it. There should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to advance a reasonable or meritorious explanation for his/her failure to comply with the rules.

»In this case, contrary to the finding of the Court of Appeals, there is no compelling reason advanced to exempt Consilium from the consequences of its noncompliance with the rules on appeals and motions.

«Consilium prays for the liberal application of Section 4 in relation to Section 13, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, as amended on the justification that its counsel's clerk „forgot“ to pay the appeal fee when he filed the notice of appeal — an excusable negligence.» (Emphasis and inderscoring ours)

The Supreme Court then proceeded to cite the Rules, particularly Sections 4 and 13 of Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Court, which provide that:

«Section 4.