G.R. No. 187104. August 3, 2010.

SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY, INC., petitioner, vs. EVANGELINE

C. COBARRUBIAS, respondent.

Appeals; Docket Fees; Pleadings and Practice; Appeal is not a natural

right but a mere statutory privilege, thus, appeal must be made strictly in
accordance with the provision set by law; Payment in full of docket fees
within the prescribed period is not only mandatory, but also jurisdictional.
—Appeal is not a natural right but a mere statutory privilege, thus, appeal
must be made strictly in accordance with the provision set by law. Rule 43
of the Rules of Court provides that appeals from the judgment of the VA
shall be taken to the CA, by filing a petition for review within fifteen (15)
days from the receipt of the notice of judgment. Furthermore, upon the
filing of the petition, the petitioner shall pay to the CA clerk of court the
docketing and other lawful fees; non-compliance with the procedural
requirements shall be a sufficient ground for the petition’s dismissal. Thus,
payment in full of docket fees within the prescribed period is not only
mandatory, but also jurisdictional. It is an essential requirement, without
which, the decision appealed from would become final and executory as if
no appeal has been filed.
Procedural Rules and Technicalities; Procedural rules are not to be
belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have
prejudiced a party’s substantive rights; like all rules, they are required to be
followed; Exceptions.—Procedural rules do not exist for the convenience of
the litigants; the rules were established primarily to provide order to and
enhance the efficiency of our judicial system. While procedural rules are
liberally construed, the provisions on reglementary periods are strictly
applied, indispensable as they are to the prevention of needless delays, and
are necessary to the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business.
Viewed in this light, procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed
simply because their non-observance may have prejudiced a party’s
substantive rights; like all rules, they are required to be followed. However,
there are recognized exceptions to their strict observance, such as: (1) most
persuasive and weighty reasons; (2) to relieve a litigant from an

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

650
650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Saint Luis University, Inc. vs. Cobbarubias

injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed
procedure; (3) good faith of the defaulting party by immediately paying
within a reasonable time from the time of the default; (4) the existence of
special or compelling circumstances; (5) the merits of the case; (6) a cause
not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the
suspension of the rules; (7) a lack of any showing that the review sought is
merely frivolous and dilatory; (8) the other party will not be unjustly
prejudiced thereby; (9) fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence
without the appellant's fault; (10) peculiar, legal and equitable circumstances
attendant to each case; (11) in the name of substantial justice and fair play;
(12) importance of the issues involved; and (13) exercise of sound discretion
by the judge, guided by all the attendant circumstances. Thus, there should
be an effort, on the part of the party invoking liberality, to advance a
reasonable or meritorious explanation for his/her failure to comply with the
rules.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of

the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Ceasar G. Oracion and Jason R. Barlis for petitioner.
Emmanuel T. Costales for respondent.

BRION, J.:
We resolve the present petition for review on certiorari1 filed by
petitioner Saint Louis University, Inc. (SLU), to challenge the
decision2 and the resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-
G.R. SP No. 101708.4

_______________

1 Filed under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court; Rollo, pp. 13-42.
2 Dated November 5, 2008, penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo,
and concurred in by Associate Justices Mario L. Guariña III and Arturo G. Tayag; id.,
at pp. 144-158.
3 Dated February 24, 2009; id., at pp. 167-168.
4 Entitled “Evangeline C. Cobarrubias v. Saint Louis University, represented by
Fr. Jessie M. Hechanova.”

651

VOL. 626, AUGUST 3, 2010 651

Saint Luis University, Inc. vs. Cobbarubias

The Factual Background

The facts of the case, gathered from the records, are briefly
summarized below.
 Respondent Evangeline C. Cobarrubias is an associate professor
of the petitioner’s College of Human Sciences. She is an active
member of the Union of Faculty and Employees of Saint Louis
University (UFESLU).
The 2001-20065 and 2006-20116 Collective Bargaining
Agreements (CBAs) between SLU and UFESLU contain the
following common provision on forced leave:

“Section 7.7. For teaching employees in college who fail the yearly evaluation,

the following provisions shall apply:
(a) Teaching employees who are retained for three (3) cumulative years in five
(5) years shall be on forced leave for one (1) regular semester during which
period all benefits due them shall be suspended.”7

SLU placed Cobarrubias on forced leave for the first semester of

School Year (SY) 2007-2008 when she failed the evaluation for SY
2002-2003, SY 2005-2006, and SY 2006-2007, with the rating of
85, 77, and 72.9 points, respectively, below the required rating of 87
points.
To reverse the imposed forced leave, Cobarrubias sought
recourse from the CBA’s grievance machinery. Despite the
conferences held, the parties still failed to settle their dispute,
prompting Cobarrubias to file a case for illegal forced leave or
illegal suspension with the National Conciliation and Mediation
Board of the Department of Labor and Employment, Cordillera
Administrative Region, Baguio City. When circulation and
mediation again failed, the parties submitted the

_______________

5 Rollo, pp. 62-64.

6 Id., at pp. 65-67.
7 Id., at p. 63 and p. 66.

652

652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Saint Luis University, Inc. vs. Cobbarubias

issues between them for voluntary arbitration before Voluntary

Arbitrator (VA) Daniel T. Fariñas.
Cobarrubias argued that the CA already resolved the forced leave
issue in a prior case between the parties, CA-G.R. SP No. 90596,8
ruling that the forced leave for teachers who fail their evaluation for
three (3) times within a five-year period should be coterminous with
the CBA in force during the same five-year period.9
SLU, for its part, countered that the CA decision in CA-G.R. SP
No. 90596 cannot be considered in deciding the present case since it
is presently on appeal with this Court (G.R. No. 176717)10 and, thus,
is not yet final. It argued that the forced leave provision applies
irrespective of which CBA is applicable, provided the employee
fails her evaluation three (3) times in five (5) years.11
 The Voluntary Arbitrator Decision

On October 26, 2007, VA Daniel T. Fariñas dismissed the case.12

He found that the CA decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 90596 is not yet
final because of the pending appeal with this Court. He noted that
the CBA clearly authorized SLU to place its teaching employees on
forced leave when they fail in the evaluation for three (3) years
within a five-year period, without a distinction on whether the three
years fall within one or two CBA periods. Cobarrubias received the
VA’s decision on November 20, 2007.13

_______________

8 Decision of May 23, 2006, entitled “Saint Louis University, Inc. v. Evangeline
C. Cobarrubias.”
9 Entitled “Evangeline C. Cobarrubias v. Saint Louis University, Inc.”
10 Id., at pp. 68-77.
11 Id., at pp. 45-61.
12 Id., at pp. 78-85.
13 Id., at p. 86.

653

VOL. 626, AUGUST 3, 2010 653

Saint Luis University, Inc. vs. Cobbarubias

On December 5, 2007, Cobarrubias filed with the CA a petition

for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, but failed to pay the
required filing fees and to attach to the petition copies of the
material portions of the record.14
Thus, on January 14, 2008, the CA dismissed the petition
outright for Cobarrubias’ procedural lapses.15 Cobarrubias received
the CA resolution, dismissing her petition, on January 31, 2008.16
On February 15, 2008, Cobarrubias filed her motion for
reconsideration, arguing that the ground cited is technical. She,
nonetheless, attached to her motion copies of the material portions
of the record and the postal money orders for P4,230.00. She
maintained that the ends of justice and fair play are better served if
the case is decided on its merits.17
On July 30, 2008, the CA reinstated the petition. It found that
Cobarrubias substantially complied with the rules by paying the
appeal fee in full and attaching the proper documents in her motion
for reconsideration.18
SLU insisted that the VA decision had already attained finality
for Cobarrubias’ failure to pay the docket fees on time.

The CA Decision

The CA brushed aside SLU’s insistence on the finality of the VA

decision and annulled it, declaring that the “three (3) cumulative
years in five (5) years” phrase in Section 7.7(a) of the 2006-2011
CBA means within the five-year effectivity of the CBA. Thus, the
CA ordered SLU to pay all the benefits

_______________

14 Id., at pp. 86-95.

15 Id., at pp. 97-98.
16 Id., at p. 99.
17 Id., at pp. 99-105.
18 Id., at pp. 112-115.

654

654 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Saint Luis University, Inc. vs. Cobbarubias

due Cobarrubias for the first semester of SY 2007-2008, when she

was placed on forced leave.19
When the CA denied20 the motion for reconsideration that
followed,21 SLU filed the present petition for review on certiorari.22

The Petition

SLU argues that the CA should not have reinstated the appeal
since Cobarrubias failed to pay the docket fees within the prescribed
period, and rendered the VA decision final and executory. Even if
Cobarrubias’ procedural lapse is disregarded, SLU submits that
Section 7.7(a) of the 2006-2011 CBA should apply irrespective of
the five-year effectivity of each CBA.23

The Case for Cobarrubias

Cobarrubias insists that the CA settled the appeal fee issue, in its
July 30, 2008 resolution, when it found that she had substantially
complied with the rules by subsequently paying the docket fees in
full. She submits that the CA’s interpretation of Section 7.7(a) of the
2006-2011 CBA is more in accord with law and jurisprudence.24

The Issues

The core issues boil down to whether the CA erred in reinstating

Cobarrubias’ petition despite her failure to pay the appeal fee within
the reglementary period, and in reversing the VA decision. To state
the obvious, the appeal fee is a

_______________

19 Decision of November 5, 2008; supra note 2.

20 Resolution of February 24, 2009; supra note 3.
21 Id., at pp. 160-165.
22 Id., at pp. 13-44.
23 Ibid.
 24 Id., at pp. 219-228.

655

VOL. 626, AUGUST 3, 2010 655

Saint Luis University, Inc. vs. Cobbarubias

threshold issue that renders all other issues unnecessary if SLU’s

position on this issue is correct.

The Court’s Ruling

We find the petition meritorious.

Payment of Appellate Court Docket Fees
Appeal is not a natural right but a mere statutory privilege, thus,
appeal must be made strictly in accordance with the provision set by
law.25 Rule 43 of the Rules of Court provides that appeals from the
judgment of the VA shall be taken to the CA, by filing a petition for
review within fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the notice of
judgment.26 Furthermore, upon the filing of the petition, the
petitioner shall pay to the CA clerk of court the docketing and other
lawful fees;27

_______________

25 Espejo v. Ito, G.R. No. 176511, August 4, 2009, 595 SCRA 192, 204.
26 SEC. 4. Period of appeal.—The appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15)
days from notice of the award, judgment, final order or resolution, or from the date of
its last publication, if publication is required by law for its effectivity, or of the denial
of petitioner’s motion for new trial or reconsideration duly filed in accordance with
the governing law of the court or agency a quo. Only one (1) motion for
reconsideration shall be allowed. Upon proper motion and the payment of the full
amount of the docket fee before the expiration of the reglementary period, the Court
of Appeals may grant an additional period of fifteen (15) days only within which to
file the petition for review. No further extension shall be granted except for the most
compelling reason and in no case to exceed fifteen (15) days. (Rule 43, Revised Rules
of Court.)
27 SEC. 5. How appeal taken.—Appeal shall be taken by filing a verified
petition for review in seven (7) legible copies with the Court of Appeals, with proof
of service of a copy thereof on the adverse party and on the court or agency a quo.
The original copy of the petition intended for the Court of Appeals shall be indicated
as such by the petitioner.

656

656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Saint Luis University, Inc. vs. Cobbarubias

non-compliance with the procedural requirements shall be a

sufficient ground for the petition’s dismissal.28 Thus, payment in full
of docket fees within the prescribed period is not only mandatory,
but also jurisdictional.29 It is an essential requirement, without
which, the decision appealed from would become final and
executory as if no appeal has been filed.30
As early as the 1932 case of Lazaro v. Endencia and Andres,31 we
stressed that the payment of the full amount of the docket fee is an
indispensable step for the perfection of an appeal. In Lee v.
Republic,32 we decided that even though half of the appellate court
docket fee was deposited, no appeal was deemed perfected where
the other half was tendered after the period within which payment
should have been made. In Aranas v. Endona,33 we reiterated that
the appeal is not per-

_______________

Upon the filing of the petition, the petitioner shall pay to the clerk of court of the
Court of Appeals the docketing and other lawful fees and deposit the sum of P500.00
for costs. Exemption from payment of docketing and other lawful fees and the deposit
for costs may be granted by the Court of Appeals upon a verified motion setting forth
valid grounds therefor. If the Court of Appeals denies the motion, the petitioner shall
pay the docketing and other lawful fees and deposit for costs within fifteen (15) days
from notice of the denial. (Rule 43, Revised Rules of Court.)
28 SEC. 7. Effect of failure to comply with requirements.—The failure of the
petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of
the docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition,
and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be
sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof. (Rule 43, Revised Rules of Court.)
29 Ruby Shelter Builders and Realty Development Corporation v. Formaran III,
G.R. No. 175914, February 10, 2009, 578 SCRA 283, 297.
30 Ruiz v. Delos Santos, G.R. No. 166386, January 27, 2009, 577 SCRA 29, 43.
31 57 Phil. 552, 553 (1932).
32 No. L-15027, January 31, 1964, 10 SCRA 65, 67.
33 203 Phil. 120, 127; 117 SCRA 753, 759 (1982).

657

VOL. 626, AUGUST 3, 2010 657

Saint Luis University, Inc. vs. Cobbarubias

fected if only a part of the docket fee is deposited within the

reglementary period and the remainder is tendered after the
expiration of the period.
The rulings in these cases have been consistently reiterated in
subsequent cases: Guevarra v. Court of Appeals,34 Pedrosa v.
Spouses Hill,35 Gegare v. Court of Appeals,36 Lazaro v. Court of
Appeals,37 Sps. Manalili v. Sps. de Leon,38 La Salette College v.
Pilotin,39 Saint Louis University v. Spouses Cordero,40 M.A.
Santander Construction, Inc. v. Villanueva,41 Far Corporation v.
Magdaluyo,42 Meatmasters Int’l. Corp. v. Lelis Integrated Dev’t.
Corp.,43 Tamayo v. Tamayo, Jr.,44 Enriquez v. Enriquez,45 KLT
Fruits, Inc. v. WSR Fruits, Inc.,46
_______________

34 241 Phil. 40, 44-45; 157 SCRA 32, 36-37 (1988); docket fees paid forty-one
(41) days late.
35 327 Phil. 153, 158; 257 SCRA 373, 378 (1996); docket fees paid four (4)
months late.
36 358 Phil. 228, 232; 297 SCRA 587, 591 (1998); nonpayment of docket fees
despite CA notice to pay.
37 386 Phil. 412, 417; 330 SCRA 208, 212 (2000); docket fees paid six (6) months
late.
38 422 Phil. 214, 221; 370 SCRA 625, 631 (2001); docket fees paid almost ten
(10) months late.
39 463 Phil. 785, 793; 418 SCRA 380, 387 (2003); docket fees paid one (1) year
and eleven (11) months late.
40 478 Phil. 739, 750; 434 SCRA 575, 586 (2004); docket fees paid almost a
month late.
41 484 Phil. 500, 504; 441 SCRA 525, 529 (2004); docket fees paid seven (7)
months and twenty-five (25) days late.
42 485 Phil. 599, 610; 443 SCRA 218, 229 (2004); docket fees paid 132 days late.
43 492 Phil. 698, 701; 452 SCRA 626, 630 (2005); docket fees paid one (1) month
late.
44 G.R. No. 148482, August 12, 2005, 466 SCRA 618, 622-623; docket fees paid
only upon the filing of the motion for reconsideration.
45 G.R. No. 139303, August 25, 2005, 468 SCRA 77, 86; docket fees paid four (4)
months late.
46 G.R. No. 174219, November 23, 2007, 538 SCRA 713, 730; docket fees paid
more than thirty (30) days late.

658

658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Saint Luis University, Inc. vs. Cobbarubias

Tan v. Link,47 Ilusorio v. Ilusorio-Yap,48 and most recently in Tabigue

v. International Copra Export Corporation (INTERCO),49 and
continues to be the controlling doctrine.
In the present case, Cobarrubias filed her petition for review on
December 5, 2007, fifteen (15) days from receipt of the VA decision
on November 20, 2007, but paid her docket fees in full only after
seventy-two (72) days, when she filed her motion for
reconsideration on February 15, 2008 and attached the postal money
orders for P4,230.00. Undeniably, the docket fees were paid late, and
without payment of the full docket fees, Cobarrubias’ appeal was
not perfected within the reglementary period.
Exceptions to the Rule on Payment of Appellate
Court Docket Fees not applicable
Procedural rules do not exist for the convenience of the litigants;
the rules were established primarily to provide order to and enhance
the efficiency of our judicial system.50 While procedural rules are
liberally construed, the provisions on reglementary periods are
strictly applied, indispensable as they are to the prevention of
needless delays, and are necessary to the orderly and speedy
discharge of judicial business.51

_______________

47 G.R. No. 172849, December 10, 2008, 573 SCRA 479, 492; docket fees paid
two (2) days late.
48 G.R. No. 171659, March 17, 2009, 581 SCRA 643, 646; docket fees paid more
than three (3) months late.
49 G.R. No. 183335, December 23, 2009, 609 SCRA 223; deficiency in docket
fees paid only upon the filing of the motion for reconsideration.
50 Mejillano v. Lucillo, G.R. No. 154717, June 19, 2009, 590 SCRA 1, 9; Ko v.
Philippine National Bank, G.R. Nos. 169131-32, January 20, 2006, 479 SCRA 298,
303.
51 Villa v. Heirs of Enrique Altavas, G.R. No. 162028, July 14, 2008, 558 SCRA
157, 166; Moneytrend Lending Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No 165580,
February 20, 2006, 482 SCRA 705, 714.

659

VOL. 626, AUGUST 3, 2010 659

Saint Luis University, Inc. vs. Cobbarubias

Viewed in this light, procedural rules are not to be belittled or

dismissed simply because their non-observance may have prejudiced
a party’s substantive rights; like all rules, they are required to be
followed. However, there are recognized exceptions to their strict
observance, such as: (1) most persuasive and weighty reasons; (2) to
relieve a litigant from an injustice not commensurate with his failure
to comply with the prescribed procedure; (3) good faith of the
defaulting party by immediately paying within a reasonable time
from the time of the default; (4) the existence of special or
compelling circumstances; (5) the merits of the case; (6) a cause not
entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by
the suspension of the rules; (7) a lack of any showing that the review
sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; (8) the other party will not
be unjustly prejudiced thereby; (9) fraud, accident, mistake or
excusable negligence without the appellant's fault; (10) peculiar,
legal and equitable circumstances attendant to each case; (11) in the
name of substantial justice and fair play; (12) importance of the
issues involved; and (13) exercise of sound discretion by the judge,
guided by all the attendant circumstances.52 Thus, there should be an
effort, on the part of the party invoking liberality, to advance a
reasonable or meritorious explanation for his/her failure to comply
with the rules.
In Cobarrubias’ case, no such explanation has been
advanced. Other than insisting that the ends of justice and fair play
are better served if the case is decided on its merits, Cobarrubias
offered no excuse for her failure to pay the docket fees in full when
she filed her petition for review. To us, Cobarrubias’ omission is
fatal to her cause.
 We, thus, find that the CA erred in reinstating Cobarrubias’
petition for review despite the nonpayment of the

_______________

52 Lim v. Delos Santos, G.R. No. 172574, July 31, 2009, 594 SCRA 607, 616-617;
Villena v. Rupisan, G.R. No. 167620, April 3, 2007, 520 SCRA 346, 358-359.

660

660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Saint Luis University, Inc. vs. Cobbarubias

requisite docket fees within the reglementary period. The VA

decision had lapsed to finality when the docket fees were paid;
hence, the CA had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal except to
order its dismissal.
WHEREFORE, the present petition is GRANTED. The assailed
decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
101708 are hereby DECLARED VOID and are consequently SET
ASIDE. The decision of the voluntary arbitrator, that the voided
Court of Appeals decision and resolution nullified, stands. No
pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.

Carpio-Morales (J., Chairperson), Bersamin, Abad** and

Villarama, Jr., JJ., concur.

Petition granted, judgment and resolution declared void and set

aside.

Note.—While a court may refuse to entertain a suit for non-

payment of docket fees, such failure does not preclude it, however,
from taking cognizance of the case as circumstances may so warrant
or when the ends of justice would be best served if the case were to
be given due course—the failure to pay the appeal docketing fee
confers a discretionary authority, not mandatory charge, on the part
to dismiss an appeal. (Public Estates Authority vs. Yujuico, 351
SCRA 280 [2001])
——o0o——

_______________

** Designated additional Member of the Third Division, in view of the retirement

of Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, per Special Order No. 843 dated May 17, 2010.

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.