Gipa vs. Southern Luzon Institute CASE DIGEST - Civil Procedure - Commencement of action

Gipa vs. Southern Luzon Institute

Facts: 1996 SLI filed a complaint for recovery of ownership and possession with damages against Gipa et al. SLI alleged that it is the absolute owner of a parcel of land. Gipa et al who had been informally occupying portion of the said property refused to vacate premises despite demand. Gipa et al asserted that they did not heed SLI’s demand to vacate as they believe that they have the right to stay on the said property relying on the fact that they and their predecessors in interest occupied the property since the 1950s.

RTC ruled in favor of SLI having proven its ownershi. CA dismissed since the it was not shown that appellate court docket fees and other lawful fees were paid. Gipa attached a certification from the RTC that they paid the appeal fee in the amount of P3000. Then, CA further required Gipa to pay P30 for legal research fund which was apparently was not included in the P3000 appeal fee. 9 months after they still failed to comply. Hence, CA dismissed the appeal for nonpayment of the docket and other lawful fees.

Issue: WON CA gravely erred in dismissing the appeal for the failure of petitioners to remit the P30 for legal research fund after having advanced a substantial portion of docket fees.

Held: No. Gipa et al concede to the fact that payment of the full amount of docket fees within the prescribed period is not a mere technicality of law or procedure but a jurisdictional requirement they nevertheless are praying for the relaxation of the application of the rule on the payment of the appeal fee in the name of substantial justice and equity. The Court held that "concomitant to the liberal interpretation of the rules of procedure should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to adequately explain his failure to abide by the rules.” Those who seek exemption from the application of the rule have the burden of proving the existence of exceptionally meritorious reason warranting such departure. Gipa’s failure to advance any explanation as to why they failed to pay the correct docket fees or to complete payment of the same within the period allowed by the CA is thus fatal to their cause. Hence, a departure from the rule on the payment of the appeal fee is unwarranted.