This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-07-18 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The rule is that payment in full of the docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory.[8] In Manchester v. Court of Appeals, [9] it was held that a court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fee. The strict application of this rule was, however, relaxed two (2) years after in the case of Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. v. Asuncion,[10] wherein the Court decreed that where the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by the payment of the docket fee, the court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable period of time, but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. This ruling was made on the premise that the plaintiff had demonstrated his willingness to abide by the rules by paying the additional docket fees required.[11] Thus, in the more recent case of United Overseas Bank v. Ros,[12] the Court explained that where the party does not deliberately intend to defraud the court in payment of docket fees, and manifests its willingness to abide by the rules by paying additional docket fees when required by the court, the liberal doctrine enunciated in Sun Insurance Office, Ltd., and not the strict regulations set in Manchester, will apply. It has been on record that the Court, in several instances, allowed the relaxation of the rule on non-payment of docket fees in order to afford the parties the opportunity to fully ventilate their cases on the merits. In the case of La Salette College v. Pilotin,[13] the Court stated: | |||||
|
2005-01-21 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Concomitant to a liberal application of the rules of procedure should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to at least explain its failure to comply with the rules.[31] This Court finds no exceptional circumstances to justify the relaxation of the rules and neither has petitioner tried to offer any valid reason or explanation as to why it failed to properly observe the rules of procedure. This being the case, another elementary rule of procedure applies, i.e., the perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional so that failure to do so renders the questioned resolution final and executory, and deprives this Court of jurisdiction to alter the final order, much less to entertain the appeal.[32] This rule is founded upon the principle that the right to appeal is not part of due process of law but is a mere statutory privilege to be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law.[33] It is a jurisdictional caveat that not even this Court can trifle with.[34] | |||||