This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2008-08-26 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| It may be recalled that despite the payment of insufficient fees, this Court refrained from dismissing the complaint/petition in Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation (IBC-13) v. Alonzo-Legasto,[71] Yambao v. Court of Appeals[72] and Ayala Land, Inc. v. Carpo.[73] In those cases, the inadequate payment was caused by the erroneous assessment made by the Clerk of Court. In Intercontinental,[74] we declared that the payment of the docket fees, as assessed, negates any imputation of bad faith to the respondent or any intent of the latter to defraud the government. Thus, when insufficient filing fees were initially paid by the respondent, and there was no intention to defraud the government, the Manchester rule does not apply. In Yambao,[75] this Court concluded that petitioners cannot be faulted for their failure to pay the required docket fees for, given the prevailing circumstances, such failure was clearly not a dilatory tactic or intended to circumvent the Rules of Court. In Ayala Land,[76] the Court held that despite the jurisdictional nature of the rule on payment of docket fees, the appellate court still has the discretion to relax the rule in meritorious cases. | |||||
|
2008-07-04 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| 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 be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the rules provided therefor.[41] 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.[42] Nevertheless, as this Court ruled in Aranas v. Endona,[43] 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.[44] | |||||
|
2004-11-19 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In support of the assignment of errors, petitioner submits the arguments that the nonpayment on time of the appeal docket fees is a non-fatal lapse, or a non-jurisdictional defect which the Court of Appeals should have overlooked in order to attain substantial justice.[21] This argument, according to petitioner, was based on our rulings in the earlier cases of Rosario Yambao v. Court of Appeals,[22] Ayala Land, Inc. v. Sps. Morris and Socorro Carpo,[23] and Santos v. Court of Appeals.[24] Further, petitioner argues that the Court of Appeals hastily and wrongly dismissed its appeal considering that there was good faith and willingness on its part to comply with the Rules by voluntarily paying the docket fees.[25] | |||||