G.R. No. 150241 - EDUARDO S. MERCADO, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY HIS COUNSEL, ATTY. ENRICO M. UYEHARA, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE HONORABLE LETICIA P. MORALES, IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 140 OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MAKATI CITY, ESTATE OF CONCEPCION CLAUDIO GATMAITAN, CARMELIE

Ruling

Accordingly, when a party adopts an improper remedy, as in this case, his petition may be dismissed outright. [10] Petitioner should have availed of the ordinary appeal process such as a petition for review under Rule 45, within 15 days after notice of denial of his Motion for Reconsideration. Undoubtedly, petitioner had already lost this remedy when he filed this special civil action on January 16, 2001. A Petition for Certiorari cannot be a substitute for the lost or lapsed remedy of appeal, where such loss is occasioned by the petitioners own neglect or error in the choice of remedies. [11] By his own account, petitioner received the Order denying the Motion for Reconsideration from the RTC on November 17, 2000. Instead of filing a petition for review with the appellate court within 15 days thereof or until December 2, 2000, he filed a petition for certiorari by registered mail on January 16, 2001, but belatedly made the payment of docket fees only on January 17, 2001. Noteworthy, petitioner did not even attempt to explain why he was unable to file a petition for review within the reglementary period. Indeed, not infrequently, litigants and parties to a petition have invoked liberal construction of the Rules of Court to justify lapses in its observance. Hopefully, it is not simply a cover-up of their own neglect or sheer ignorance of procedure. While indeed this Court has on occasion set aside procedural irregularities in the interest of justice, it must be stressed that liberality of construction of the rules should not be a panacea for all procedural maladies. For this Court will not tolerate wanton disregard of the procedural rules under the guise of liberal construction. In any event, even if we were to disregard the procedural defects, we find that this petition must still be dismissed as the appellate court did not commit any grave abuse of discretion amounting to want or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the petition for late payment of filing fees. Petitioner undeniably paid his docket fees beyond the reglementary period of 60 days for filing a petition for certiorari. Well settled is the rule that the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case, unless the docket fees are paid. [12] And where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by payment of the docket fees, the court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. [13] Thus, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari pursuant to Rule 46, Section 3 [14] in relation to Rule 65, Section 6 (2) [15] of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. WHEREFORE , the instant petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The assailed Resolutions dated February 23, 2001 and July 31, 2001 of the Court of Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED . SO ORDERED.