PACIFIC UNION INSURANCE COMPANY vs.

CONCEPTS & SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT, INCORPORATED and COURT OF

APPEALS 2011 Feb 23 G.R. No. 183528DECISION
The Case:
This petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeks the annulment of the Court of
Appeals (CA) Resolution dated May 7, 2008,[1] dismissing petitioners appeal for failure to pay the docket fees.
Likewise assailed is CA Resolution dated June 12, 2008,[2] denying the motion for reconsideration.

Fact:
Concepts & Systems Development, Inc. (private respondent) and a certain Pedro Perez (Perez) entered
into an Amended Construction Agreement on February 11, 1997, whereby the latter undertook to construct,
build, and complete the civil, architectural, and plumbing works of the formers condominium project. The
project was divided into three (3) stages and, in consideration of Perezs undertaking.

Issue:
Whether or not a liberal application of the rules on perfection of appeal on the ground that it has a
meritorious defense against the claim of respondent be made.
Held:
The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege
and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. Thus, one who seeks to
avail of the right to appeal must comply with the requirements of the Rules. Failure to do so inevitably leads to
the loss of the right to appeal.
Nonetheless, the emerging trend in our jurisprudence is to afford every
party-litigant the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause free from the
constraints of technicalities. While it is desirable that the Rules of Court be faithfully and even meticulously
observed, courts should not be so strict about procedural lapses that do not really impair the administration of
justice. This is based, no less, on the Rules of Court which itself calls for a liberal construction of its provisions,
with the objective of securing for the parties a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of every action and
proceeding.
The dismissal of petitioners appeal was based on the absence of the proof of payment of docket fees
from the records transmitted by the RTC clerk of court.[18] This procedural lapse is too inconsequential to
prejudice the administration of justice, considering that the required fees were actually paid, as shown in the July
10, 2007 RTC Order granting the notice of appeal which explicitly declares that the appeal docket fee therefor
was paid within the reglementary period allowed by law. That petitioners counsel mistakenly thought that no
payment was made, and thus prayed, in her motion for reconsideration, for the chance to pay the fees
belatedly, is of no moment. The fact is, there was actual payment.

The courts discretionary power in dismissing an appeal for failure to comply with the Rules should be used in
the exercise of sound judgment in accordance with the tenets of justice and fair play with a great deal of
circumspection, considering all attendant circumstances, and must be exercised wisely and ever prudently,
never capriciously, with a view to substantial justice.