G.R. No. 218867 - SPOUSES EDMOND LEE AND HELEN HUANG, VS. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, dismissed respondent's appeal for failure to prosecute. Upon a meticulous inspection of the records, the RTC found that respondent failed to pay the prescribed appeal fees. While it is true that Postal Money Order No. J8353389-390 had been issued by respondent as purported payment therefor, records show that the amount pertaining thereto had not been remitted or credited to the account of the Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC. According to the Officer-in-Charge (OIC) Clerk of Court of the RTC, Mr. Gelbert Argonza (Mr. Argonza), respondent's failure to pay the appeal fees was the reason why the records of the case were not transmitted to the CA, explaining that proof of payment of the appeal fees is a required attachment that forms part of the records to be transmitted to the CA. [23] As payment of docket and other legal fees within the prescribed period is both mandatory and jurisdictional, the RTC, therefore, held that respondent's appeal was not duly perfected. As such, it did not lose jurisdiction over the case and, accordingly, pursuant to Section 5, [24] Rule 141 on Legal Fees of the Rules of Court, dismissed respondent's appeal for failure to prosecute. [25] Respondent's motion for reconsideration [26] was denied in an Order dated December 11, 2013; hence, the matter was elevated before the CA via a petition for certiorari , imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC in dismissing its appeal. The CA Ruling In a Decision [27] dated January 28, 2015, the CA found grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC in dismissing respondent's appeal for failure to prosecute, holding that the validity of the latter's appeal had already been passed upon in the RTC's earlier Orders dated June 7, 2007 and August 27, 2008 that gave due course to the appeal and directed the transmittal of the records to the CA. It also ruled that upon the perfection of respondent's appeal, the RTC had already lost jurisdiction over the case. Thus, any orders subsequently issued by the RTC after the filing of respondent's Notice of Appeal on June 19, 2002 were of no force and effect. [28] Aggrieved, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, [29] which the CA denied in a Resolution [30] dated June 5, 2015; hence, this petition. The Issue Before the Court The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA erred in finding grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC when it dismissed respondent's appeal for failure to prosecute. The Court's Ruling The petition has merit. Section 4, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides: Section 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. Proof of payment of said fees shall be transmitted to the appellate court together with the original record or the record on appeal.