This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-06-22 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The payment of docket fees within the prescribed period is, as a rule, mandatory for the perfection of an appeal.[94] Secs. 4 and 9 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provide, thus: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. x x x | |||||
|
2007-04-03 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In Camposagrado v. Camposagrado,[44] the case involved a deficiency in the payment of docket fees in the amount of Five Pesos (P5.00). This Court called for the liberal interpretation of the rules and gave due course to the appeal. In brief, the Court said that the failure to pay the appellate docket fee does not automatically result in the dismissal of the appeal, dismissal being discretionary on the part of the appellate court. A party's failure to pay the appellate docket fee within the reglementary period confers only a discretionary and not a mandatory power to dismiss the proposed appeal. Such discretionary power should be used in the exercise of the court's sound judgment in accordance with the tenets of justice and fair play with great deal of circumspection, considering all attendant circumstances and must be exercised wisely and ever prudently, never capriciously, with a view to substantial justice.[45] | |||||
|
2006-10-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Clearly, the CA's exercise of its discretionary power was not made with any grave abuse, but in recognition of the need to ensure that every party litigant is given the amplest opportunity for the proper and just disposition of his cause freed from the constraints of technicalities.[25] Rules of procedures are intended to promote, not to defeat, substantial justice and, therefore, they should not be applied in a very rigid and technical sense. The exception is that, while the Rules are liberally construed, the provisions with respect to the rules on the manner and periods for perfecting appeals are strictly applied. As an exception to the exception, these rules have sometimes been relaxed on equitable considerations. Also, in some cases the Supreme Court has given due course to an appeal perfected out of time where a stringent application of the rules would have denied it, but only when to do so would serve the demands of substantial justice and in the exercise of equity jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. | |||||