Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 181182 April 10, 2013
BOARDWALK BUSINESS ENTURES, INC., Petitioner,
vs.
ELIRA A. ILLAREAL !"#$#%&#"' &()&*i*(*#" )+ R#+,%l"o P. ill%r#%l, -r..&po(&#, S/#0i,%/
M%ri# ill%r#%l.A1(2(#."%(2/*#r, R#+,%l"o A. ill%r#%l ill.&o,, S/%/%,i A. ill%r#%l."%(2/*#r,
%," Bill+ R%+ A. ill%r#%l.&o,, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
!he ri"ht to appeal is neither a natural ri"ht nor is it a co#ponent of due process. It is a #ere statutor$
privile"e, and #a$ be e%ercised onl$ in the #anner and in accordance &ith the provisions of la&.
'
!his Petition for Revie& on Certiorari
(
see)s a revie& of the Court of *ppeals+ ,C*- *pril (., (//0
Resolution
1
in C*23.R. SP No. 4D5 .0'' &hich dis#issed outri"ht petitioner+s Petition. *lso assailed
is the Dece#ber (', (//0 Resolution
6
&hich denied the Motion for Reconsideration.
3%$*(%l A,*#$#"#,*&
Petitioner 7oard&al) 7usiness Ventures, Inc. ,7oard&al)- is a dul$ or"ani8ed and e%istin" do#estic
corporation en"a"ed in the sellin" of read$2to2 &ear ,R!9- #erchandise. Respondent Elvira *.
Villareal ,Villareal-, on the other hand, is one of 7oard&al):s distributors of R!9 #erchandise.
On October (/, (//., 7oard&al) filed an *#ended Co#plaint
.
for replevin a"ainst Villareal coverin"
a ';;. !o$ota !a#ara& <=, for the latter:s alle"ed failure to pa$ a car loan obtained fro# the for#er.
!he case, doc)eted as Civil Case No. '>/''>, &as filed &ith the Metropolitan !rial Court ,Me!C- of
Manila and &as assi"ned to 7ranch (0 thereof.
R(li,2 o4 */# M#*ropoli*%, Tri%l Co(r*
On Ma$ 1/, (//., the Me!C rendered its Decision
>
favorin" 7oard&al), as follo&s?
9@ERE<ORE, pre#ises considered, Aud"#ent is hereb$ rendered in favor of the plaintiff and a"ainst
the defendant adAud"in" that the for#er has the ri"ht to the possession of the subAect #otor vehicle and
for the latter to pa$ the costs of the suit.
SO ORDERED.
0
Villareal #oved for reconsideration,
B
but failed.
;
R(li,2 o4 */# R#2io,%l Tri%l Co(r* !RTC'
She thus appealed
'/
to the Manila R!C, &hich court
''
issued a Decision
'(
reversin" the Me!C
Decision, thus?
9@ERE<ORE, the appeal is "ranted. !he assailed Aud"#ent of the lo&er court is reversed and set
aside. Defendant Villareal has the ri"ht of possession to and the value of subAect vehicle described in
the co#plaint. @ence, plaintiff is directed to deliver the subAect vehicle to defendant or its value in case
deliver$ cannot be #ade. !he co#plaint and counterclai# are both dis#issed.
SO ORDERED.
'1
7oard&al) filed a Motion for Reconsideration,
'6
but the sa#e &as denied b$ the R!C in a Dece#ber
'6, (//> Order,
'.
&hich 7oard&al) received on Canuar$ ';, (//0.
'>
On <ebruar$ ., (//0,
'0
7oard&al) throu"h counsel filed &ith the Manila R!C a Motion for E%tension of !i#e to <ile Petition
for Revie&,
'B
pra$in" that it be "ranted 1/ da$s, or until March 0, (//0, to file its Petition for Revie&.
It paid the doc)et and other le"al fees therefor at the Office of the Cler) of Court of the Manila R!C.
';
On even date, 7oard&al) also filed a Notice of *ppeal
(/
&ith the R!C &hich the said court denied for
bein" a &ron" #ode of appeal.
('
On March 0, (//0, 7oard&al) filed throu"h #ail
((
its Petition for Revie&
(1
&ith the C*.1wphi1
R(li,2 o4 */# Co(r* o4 App#%l&
On *pril (., (//0, the C* issued the first assailed Resolution, the dispositive portion of &hich reads as
follo&s?
*CCORDIN3DE, the Petition for Revie& is hereb$ DISMISSED O4!RI3@!.
SO ORDERED.
(6
In dis#issin" the Petition for Revie&, the C* held that 7oard&al) erred in filin" its Motion for
E%tension and pa$in" the doc)et fees therefor &ith the R!C. It should have done so &ith the C* as
reFuired b$ Section '(. of Rule 6( of the Rules of Court. It held that as a result of 7oard&al):s
erroneous filin" and pa$#ent of doc)et fees, it &as as if no Motion for E%tension &as filed, and the
subseFuent March 0, (//0 filin" of its Petition &ith the appellate court &as thus late and be$ond the
re"le#entar$ '.2da$ period provided for under Rule 6(.
!he C* added that 7oard&al):s pra$er for a 1/2da$ e%tension in its Motion for E%tension &as
irre"ular, because the #a%i#u# period that #a$ be "ranted is onl$ '. da$s pursuant to Section ' of
Rule 6(. * further e%tension of '. da$s should onl$ be "ranted for the #ost co#pellin" reason &hich is
not obtainin" in the present case. Moreover, it held that 7oard&al):s Petition for Revie& failed to
include a board resolution or secretar$:s certificate sho&in" that its clai#ed representative, Ma.
Victoria M. Do ,Do-, &as authori8ed to si"n the Petition or represent 7oard&al) in the proceedin"s,
&hich thus rendered defective the Verification and Certification a"ainst foru#2shoppin". <inall$, the
C* faulted 7oard&al) for its failure to attach to its Petition copies of the Co#plaint, *ns&er, position
papers, #e#oranda and other relevant pleadin"s, as reFuired in Sections ( and 1
(>
of Rule 6(, thus
#eritin" the outri"ht dis#issal of its Petition for Revie&.
7oard&al) filed a Motion for Reconsideration
(0
and Supple#ental Motion for Reconsideration,
(B
invo)in" a liberal construction of the Rules in its favor. It further infor#ed the C* that it had paid the
doc)et fees &ith the C* Cashier, and sub#itted the reFuired secretar$:s certificate and additional
pleadin"s in support of its Petition.
In the second assailed Dece#ber (', (//0 Resolution subseFuentl$ issued, the C* denied the Motion
for Reconsideration and its supple#ent. It held that despite curative action, the fact re#ains that
7oard&al):s Petition &as filed be$ond the re"le#entar$ '.2da$ period. Even if technicalit$ &ere to be
set aside and 7oard&al) &ere to be allo&ed an e%tension of '. da$s fro# the filin" of the Motion for
E%tension on <ebruar$ ., (//0, or until <ebruar$ (/, (//0, &ithin &hich to file its Petition, its actual
filin" on March 0, (//0 &ould still be tard$.
I&&(#&
7oard&al) thus filed the instant Petition, raisin" the follo&in" issues for resolution?
PE!I!IONER IS INVO5IN3 !@E DI7ER*D CONS!R4C!ION O< !@E R4DES !O E<<EC!
S47S!*N!I*D C4S!ICE IN *CCORD*NCE 9I!@ R4DE ', SEC!ION > O< !@E ';;0 R4DES
O< CIVID PROCED4RE.
SPECI<IC*DDE, !@E *SS*IDED RESOD4!IONS = = = ORDERIN3 !@E O4!RI3@!
DISMISS*D O< !@E PE!I!ION <OR REVIE9 = = = D4E !O PROCED4R*D D*PSES, IN
!O!*D DISRE3*RD O< !@E S47S!*N!I*D ISS4ES CDE*RDE R*ISED !@ERE*!, *RE
CON!R*RE !O E=IS!IN3 R4DES, D*9, C4RISPR4DENCE *ND !@E PRINCIPDE O<
EG4I!E *ND S47S!*N!I*D C4S!ICE.
(;
P#*i*io,#r5& Ar2(6#,*&
In its Petition and Repl$,
1/
7oard&al) invo)es the principle that liti"ations should be decided on the
#erits and not on technicalitiesH that liti"ants should be afforded the a#plest opportunit$ for the proper
and Aust disposition of their causes, free fro# the constraints of technicalities. It clai#s that it should
not be faulted for the error co##itted b$ its counsel:s cler) in &ron"l$ filin" the Motion for E%tension
and pa$in" the doc)et fees &ith the R!C Cler) of Court. It pra$s that the Court revie& the #erits of its
case.
*s for the defective Verification and Certification of non2foru# shoppin", 7oard&al) contends that
these are for#al, not Aurisdictional, reFuisites &hich could as &ell be treated &ith lenienc$. Its
subseFuent sub#ission of the proper secretar$:s certificate should thus have cured the defect. It adds
that the sa#e treat#ent should be accorded its subseFuent pa$#ent of the doc)et fees &ith the C*
Cashier and sub#ission of the reFuired anne%es and pleadin"s in support of its Petition. It pra$s the
Court to consider these as substantial co#pliance &ith the Rules.
Respondent:s *r"u#ents
In her Co##ent,
1'
respondent si#pl$ echoes the C* rulin". She insists that 7oard&al):s reasons for
erroneousl$ filin" the Motion for E%tension and pa$in" the doc)et fees in the R!C are fli#s$ and
should not be considered.
Respondent adds that 7oard&al):s Petition raised factual issues relative to the #erits of the case, &hich
#a$ not be the subAect of revie& at this sta"e.
O(r R(li,2
!he Court denies the Petition.
Petitioner:s case is not uniFue, and there is no co#pellin" reason to accord it the privile"e it no& see)s.
!he ri"ht to appeal is neither a natural ri"ht nor is it a co#ponent of due process. It is a #ere statutor$
privile"e, and #a$ be e%ercised onl$ in the #anner and in accordance &ith the provisions of la&.
1(
!his bein" so,
% % % an appealin" part$ #ust strictl$ co#pl$ &ith the reFuisites laid do&n in the Rules of Court.
Deviations fro# the Rules cannot be tolerated. !he rationale for this strict attitude is not difficult to
appreciate as the Rules are desi"ned to facilitate the orderl$ disposition of appealed cases. In an a"e
&here courts are bedeviled b$ clo""ed doc)ets, the Rules need to be follo&ed b$ appellants &ith
"reater fidelit$. !heir observance cannot be left to the &hi#s and caprices of appellants. % % %
11
In this case, petitioner #ust co#pl$ &ith the follo&in" reFuire#ents laid do&n in Rule 6( of the Rules
of Court?
Section '. @o& appeal ta)enH ti#e for filin".
* part$ desirin" to appeal fro# a decision of the Re"ional !rial Court rendered in the e%ercise of its
appellate Aurisdiction #a$ file a verified petition for revie& &ith the Court of *ppeals, pa$in" at the
sa#e ti#e to the cler) of said court the correspondin" doc)et and other la&ful fees, % % %. !he petition
shall be filed and served &ithin fifteen ,'.- da$s fro# notice of the decision sou"ht to be revie&ed or
of the denial of petitioner:s #otion for ne& trial or reconsideration % % %. 4pon proper #otion % % %, the
Court of *ppeals #a$ "rant an additional period of fifteen ,'.- da$s onl$ &ithin &hich to file the
petition for revie&. No further e%tension shall be "ranted e%cept for the #ost co#pellin" reason and in
no case to e%ceed fifteen ,'.- da$s.
Sec. (. <or# and contents.
!he petition shall be % % % acco#panied b$ % % % copies % % % of the pleadin"s and other #aterial
portions of the record as &ould support the alle"ations of the petition.
!he petitioner shall also sub#it to"ether &ith the petition a certification under oath that he has not
theretofore co##enced an$ other action involvin" the sa#e issues in the Supre#e Court, the Court of
*ppeals or different divisions thereof, or an$ other tribunal or a"enc$H if there is such other action or
proceedin", he #ust state the status of the sa#eH and if he should thereafter learn that a si#ilar action or
proceedin" has been filed or is pendin" before the Supre#e Court, the Court of *ppeals, or different
divisions thereof, or an$ other tribunal or a"enc$, he underta)es to pro#ptl$ infor# the aforesaid courts
and other tribunal or a"enc$ thereof &ithin five ,.- da$s therefro#.
In addition, the Rules also reFuire that the Petition #ust be verified or acco#panied b$ an affidavit b$
&hich the affiant attests under oath that he has read the pleadin" and that the alle"ations therein are
true and correct of his personal )no&led"e or based on authentic records.
16
*nd finall$, Section 1 of Rule 6( provides that non2co#pliance &ith an$ of the fore"oin"
reFuire#ents re"ardin" the pa$#ent of the doc)et and other la&ful fees, % % % and the contents of and
the docu#ents &hich should acco#pan$ the petition shall be sufficient "round for the dis#issal
thereof.
Records sho& that petitioner failed to co#pl$ &ith the fore"oin" rules.
The Petition must be accompanied by a Verification and Certification against forum shopping. Copies
of the relevant pleadings and other material portions of the record must likewise be attached to the
Petition.
!he Rules reFuire that the Petition #ust be acco#panied b$ a Verification and Certification a"ainst
foru# shoppin". If the petitioner is a Auridical entit$, as in this case, it #ust be sho&n that the person
si"nin" in behalf of the corporation is dul$ authori8ed to represent said corporation. In this case, no
special po&er of attorne$ or board resolution &as attached to the Petition sho&in" that Do &as
authori8ed to si"n the Petition or represent 7oard&al) in the proceedin"s. In addition, petitioner failed
to attach to the Petition copies of the relevant pleadin"s and other #aterial portions of the record.
Petitioner tried to cure these lapses b$ subseFuentl$ sub#ittin" a board resolution sho&in" Do:s
authorit$ to si"n and act on behalf of 7oard&al), as &ell as copies of the relevant pleadin"s. No&, it
pra$s that the Court consider these as substantial co#pliance &ith the Rules.
Concededl$, this Court in several cases e%ercised lenienc$ and rela%ed the Rules. @o&ever, in this case,
petitioner co##itted #ultiple violations of the Rules &hich should sufficientl$ #ilitate a"ainst its plea
for lenienc$. *s &ill be sho&n belo&, petitioner failed to perfect its appeal b$ not filin" the Petition
&ithin the re"le#entar$ period and pa$in" the doc)et and other la&ful fees before the proper court.
!hese reFuire#ents are #andator$ and Aurisdictional.
Petitioner erroneously paid the docket fees and other lawful fees with the RTC.
Section ', Rule 6( of the Rules of Court specificall$ states that pa$#ent of the doc)et fees and other
la&ful fees should be #ade to the cler) of the C*. * plain readin" of the Rules leaves no roo# for
interpretationH it is cate"orical and e%plicit. It &as thus "rave error on the part of the petitioner to have
#isinterpreted the sa#e and conseFuentl$ #ista)enl$ re#itted its pa$#ent to the R!C cler).
Petitioner:s subseFuent pa$#ent to the cler) of the C* of the doc)et fees and other la&ful fees did not
cure the defect. !he pa$#ent to the C* &as lateH it &as done lon" after the re"le#entar$ period to file
an appeal had lapsed. It #ust be stressed that the pa$#ent of the doc)et fees and other la&ful fees #ust
be done &ithin '. da$s fro# receipt of notice of decision sou"ht to be revie&ed or denial of the #otion
for reconsideration. In this case, petitioner re#itted the pa$#ent to the C* cler) lon" after the lapse of
the re"le#entar$ period.
The C may grant an e!tension of 1" days only. The grant of another 1"#days e!tension$ or a total of
%&#days e!tension is allowed only for the most compelling reason.
Petitioner sou"ht an e%tension of 1/ da$s &ithin &hich to file its Petition for Revie& &ith the C*. !his
is not allo&ed. Section ' of Rule 6( allo&s an e%tension of onl$ '. da$s. No further e%tension shall be
"ranted e%cept for the #ost co#pellin" reason % % %.
1.
Petitioner never cited an$ co#pellin" reason.
!hus, even on the assu#ption that the C* "ranted 7oard&al) a '.2da$ reprieve fro# <ebruar$ 1, (//0,
or the e%piration of its ori"inal re"le#entar$ period,
1>
it still failed to file its Petition for Revie& on or
before the <ebruar$ ';, (//0
10
due date. Records sho& that the Petition &as actuall$ filed onl$ on
March 0, (//0, or &a$ be$ond the allo&able <ebruar$ ';, (//0 deadline. !he appellate court thus
correctl$ ruled that this #a$ not si#pl$ be brushed aside.
Petitioner's appeal is not deemed perfected.
More si"nificantl$, Section B of Rule 6( provides that the appeal is dee#ed perfected as to the
petitioner upon the ti#el$ filin" of a petition for revie& and the pa$#ent of the correspondin" doc)et
and other la&ful fees. 4ndisputabl$, petitioner:s appeal &as not perfected because of its failure to
ti#el$ file the Petition and to pa$ the doc)et and other la&ful fees before the proper court &hich is the
C*. ConseFuentl$, the C* properl$ dis#issed outri"ht the Petition because it never acFuired
Aurisdiction over the sa#e. *s a result, the R!C:s Decision had lon" beco#e final and e%ecutor$.
!o stress, the ri"ht to appeal is statutor$ and one &ho see)s to avail of it #ust co#pl$ &ith the statute
or rules. !he reFuire#ents for perfectin" an appeal &ithin the re"le#entar$ period specified in the la&
#ust be strictl$ follo&ed as the$ are considered indispensable interdictions a"ainst needless dela$s.
Moreover, the perfection of an appeal in the #anner and &ithin the period set b$ la& is not onl$
#andator$ but Aurisdictional as &ell, hence failure to perfect the sa#e renders the Aud"#ent final and
e%ecutor$. *nd, Aust as a losin" part$ has the privile"e to file an appeal &ithin the prescribed period, so
also does the prevailin" part$ have the correlative ri"ht to enAo$ the finalit$ of a decision in his favor.
!rue it is that in a nu#ber of instances, the Court has rela%ed the "overnin" periods of appeal in order
to serve substantial Austice. 7ut this &e have done onl$ in e%ceptional cases. Sadl$, the instant case is
definitel$ not one of the#.
1B
*t this point, it #ust be e#phasi8ed that since petitioner:s ri"ht of appeal is a #ere statutor$ privile"e,
it &as bound to a strict observance of the periods of appeal, &hich reFuire#ents are not #erel$
#andator$, but Aurisdictional.
Nor #a$ the ne"li"ence of 7oard&al):s for#er counsel be invo)ed to e%cuse it fro# the adverse
effects of the appellate court:s pronounce#ent. @is ne"li"ence or #ista)e proceeded fro# carelessness
and i"norance of the basic rules of procedure. !his does not constitute e%cusable ne"li"ence that &ould
e%tricate and e%cuse 7oard&al) fro# co#pliance &ith the Rules.
7oard&al)+s reFuest for the Court to revie& its case on the #erits should be denied as &ell. !he i#port
of the Court+s fore"oin" pronounce#ents necessaril$ renders the R !C Aud"#ent final and unassailableH
it beca#e final and e%ecutor$ after the period to appeal e%pired &ithout 7oard&al) perfectin" an
appeal. *s such, the Court #a$ no lon"er revie& it.
In li"ht of the above conclusions, the Court finds no need to further discuss the other issues raised b$
the parties.
9@ERE<ORE, the Petition is DENIED. !he Court of *ppeals+ *pril (., (//0 and Dece#ber (', (//0
Resolutions in C*23.R. SP No. 4D5 .0'' are hereb$ *<<IRMED.
SO ORDERED.
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO7br IJ*ssociate Custice