AUGUSTUS GONZALES and spouses NESTOR victor and MA.

LOURDES RODRIGUEZ, Petitioners,

vs.
QUIRICO PE, Respondent.
G.R. No. 167398 August 9, 2011

SUMMARY
 Respondent Pe was engaged in the business of construction materials and had been transacting
business with petitioner spouses Rodriguez
 In one of their projects, petitioner gave Land Bank a check with blank date and amount. The
checks are signed by the petitioners (Gonzales and Lourdes Rodriguez).
 The blank check was delivered to Pe to guarantee the payment of cement bags.
 A year later, Pe filled up blank check.
 Petitioners filed a complaint alleging that the check would serve as a collateral.
 RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners. Pe’s counterclaim was also dismissed.
 Pe filed a Notice of Appeal which the trial court gave due course and directed the BCC to
transmit the records to the CA.
 Petitioners filed an MR to dismiss Appeal stating that the same was not perfected due to non-
payment of docket and other lawful fees.
 The CA ruled in favor of the respondent. It ruled that the trial court is ordered to assess the
appellate docket fees., if it has not done so, and allow the petitioner to pay such fees and give
due course to the petitioner's appeal.

SUPREME COURT RULING

SEC. 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.

Respondent never made any payment of the docket and other lawful fees, not even an attempt to do so,
simultaneous with his filing of the Notice of Appeal. Although respondent was able to file a timely Notice
of Appeal, however, he failed to pay the docket and other legal fees, claiming that the Branch Clerk of
Court did not issue any assessment. This procedural lapse on the part of the respondent rendered his
appeal with the CA to be dismissible and, therefore, the RTC Decision, dated June 28, 2002, to be final
and executory

SEC 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 non-payment of the docket and other lawful fees within the reglementary
period. (As amended by A.M. No. 00-2-10-SC, May 1, 2000.)

Since respondent’s appeal was not perfected within the 15-day reglementary period, it was as if no
appeal was actually taken.

FALLO
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated June 23, 2004 and Resolution dated February
23, 2005 of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. 73171, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Writ of
Preliminary Injunction, issued by the Court of Appeals on August 20, 2003, is LIFTED.