Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT

Third Judicial Region
Camiling, Tarlac

Spouses JUAN AGUSTIN Jr., and

IMELDA AGUSTIN,
Plaintiffs,

-versus- Civil Case No. 13-06

Spouses ARMANDO LORENZO &

PACITA LORENZO and Spouses
DIOSDADO TOLENTINO & AZAIDA
SUMAOANG,
Defendants.
x--------------------------------------------------x

OPPOSITION TO THE
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

The undersigned counsel for the Plaintiff to this Honorable Court

respectfully states:

1. No wonder that the defendants, through counsel, were late in paying

the appeal fee since they are still relying on the cases decided by the Supreme
Court before the advent of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedures.

2. As regards to the first case of Arturo Santos et al versus Court of Appeals

[G.R. No. 114726, February 14, 1996], this case was decided before the
effectivity of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Likewise, the second case cited
by the defendants entitled Mactan Cebu International Airport vs. Francisa Quizon
Mangubat was decided on the premise of the then new 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure. The subject notice of appeal was filed by the Office of the Solicitor
General on June 30, 1997 or a day before the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,
without paying the appeal fee. The 1997 Rules of Court took effect on July 1,
1997. Thereafter, the Solicitor General paid the appeal fee. The Supreme Court
admitted the appeal of the Solicitor General for the reason that the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure newly took effect.

3. It is now January 2021 and it has been more than twenty-three (23)
years that the rules on appeal and payment of docket fee have been in effect.
Yet, defendant’s counsel is still citing cases that were decided before the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure.

4. Defendants seem put the blame upon the male attending court
personnel who they said, did not assess them for their appeal fee. It is not the
obligation of the court personnel to assess the litigants to pay appeal fee.
 2

5. The Rules of Court commands the litigants or their counsel to pay on

time the docket fee. The court personnel have no obligation to assess them for
the payment of the filing fee. In the case of Francis Zosa vs. Concilium, Inc., [G.R.
No. 196765, September 19, 2018] through then Chief Justice De Castro-
Leonardo, ruled, as follows:

Fundamental is the rule that the provisions of the law

and the rules concerning the manner and period of appeal are
mandatory and jurisdictional requirements; hence, cannot
simply be discounted under the guise of liberal
construction.28 But even if we were to apply liberality as
prayed for, it is not a magic word that once invoked will
automatically be considered as a mitigating circumstance in
favor of the party invoking it. 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 this case, contrary to the finding of the Court of

Appeals, there is no compelling reason advanced to exempt
Consilium from the consequences of its noncompliance with
the rules on appeals and motions.

Consilium prays for the liberal application of Section

4 in relation to Section 13, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, as
amended on the justification that its counsel's clerk "forgot"
to pay the appeal fee when he filed the notice of appeal – an
excusable negligence.

Sections 4 and 13, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, as

amended provide:

Section 4. Appellate Court Docket and Other Lawful

Fees. — Within the period for taking an appeal,
the appellant shall pay to the clerk of the 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.
xxxx

Section 13. Dismissal of Appeal. — Prior to the

transmittal of the original record or the record on appeal to
the appellate court, the trial court may, motu proprio or on
motion, dismiss the appeal for having been taken out of
time or for nonpayment of the docket and other lawful
fees within the reglementary period. (As amended, A.M.
No. 00-2-10-SC, May 1, 2000.) (Emphases supplied.)

With the foregoing provisions, "the Court has

consistently upheld the dismissal of an appeal or notice of
appeal for failure to pay the full docket fees within the period
for taking the appeal. Time and again, this Court has
consistently held that the payment of docket fees within the
 3

prescribed period is mandatory for the perfection of an

appeal. Without such payment, the appellate court does not
acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action and
the decision sought to be appealed from becomes final and
executory."

6. In the above-cited case, the excuse of the counsel was his clerk’s
“memory lapse”. In the instant case, the reason advanced by the counsel for
the defendants seems “the male court attendant did not assess her of appeal fee
and that the court personnel were going out of the court during office hours”.
They may have been going out because the counsel has no intention to pay the
appeal fee.

7. As regards the contention of the defendant’s counsel that his clients

will be deprived of their opportunity to have the merits of the case be reviewed
on appeal, it is sufficient to state that they forfeited their right to appeal. Appeal
is not a natural or constitutional right but a mere statutory. Being a statutory
right, all the requirements of an appeal must be complied with.

8. The reason advanced is not a compelling reason to suspend the rules.

WHEREFORE, we pray to the Honorable Court that the motion for

reconsideration of the defendants be denied and we pray for such other reliefs
which are just and equitable under the premises.

January 30, 2021. Quezon City.

Copy furnished:

Atty. DEBORAH B. SANTOS

No. 51 Romulo Boulevard,
Barangay San Vicente, Tarlac City
attydbsantos@gmail.com