G.R. No. 136121 - MACTAN CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY (MCIAA), VS. FRANCISCA CUIZON MANGUBAT, WENCESLAWA CUIZON YCONG, BERNARDO CUIZON, LUCILA CUIZON MENGUITO AND SANTAS CUIZON REMELETTE. R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, quieting title over lot no. 4538 embraced in TCT no. 29854; ordering defendant to restore possession of the said lot to the plaintiffs or to pay the latter the value thereof within thirty (30) days after this judgment becomes final, with interest at the legal rate computed from the finality of this judgment." The Solicitor-General as counsel for the defendant received copy of the said decision on June 30, 1997. A timely notice of appeal from the said judgment was filed on July 14, 1997 without payment of docket fees as required by the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure which became effective July 1, 1997. Payment for docket fees was made by the Solicitor-General six days later, or on July 20, 1997, upon realizing that the new rules require payment of docket fees, within the period for taking an appeal, to the clerk of the court which rendered the judgment. A motion to deny due course the notice of appeal for late payment of docket fees was filed by the plaintiffs, invoking the 1997 New Rules of Civil Procedure. On August 4, 1997 the regional trial court issued the questioned order dismissing the appeal for late payment of docket fees. The motion for reconsideration from the said order was denied on October 28, 1997. The Solicitor-General filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals to set aside the order of dismissal. The Court of Appeals rendered the decision subject of the instant petition for review upholding the validity of the order of dismissal issued by the regional trial court. The said tribunal held that under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure late payment for docket fees is a ground for dismissal of the appeal and the Solicitor-General's alleged inadvertence to comply with the changes introduced by the new rules is not a valid justification for the pleaded relaxation of the rules. Hence, this petition for review. The Solicitor-General pleads that the payment for docket fees six days after the filing of the notice of appeal be considered substantial compliance with the new rules on appeals embodied in the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The non-payment of docket fees within the period to appeal was without design nor plan to disregard the new procedure but was due to inadvertence considering that the new rules had taken effect for only fourteen days at the time the notice of appeal was filed. The petitioner argues that it is imperative that the merits of the case be reviewed on appeal in view of the strong evidence in support of its claims and the substantial interest of the government involved in it. The private respondents filed comment to the petition stating that the trial court and the Court of Appeals properly dismissed the appeal for late payment of docket fees and that the justification of the Solicitor-General is not a valid reason for a relaxation of the rules. The petition has merit. It is not disputed that the Solicitor-General fail