Cu-Unjieng vs. Union Bank of the Philippines

Case Title and Citation

Charles Cu-Unjieng, petitioner, vs. Hon. Court of Appeals and Union Bank of the Philippines, respondents.
G.R. No. 139596, January 24, 2006
Supreme Court - Second Division
Ponente: Justice Garcia

---

Facts

• Union Bank of the Philippines (UBP) owned a parcel of agricultural land (218,769 square meters) in Barangay Sta. Maria, San Miguel, Bulacan, registered under TCT No. TC-1062. UBP posted a list of acquired assets for sale, including the subject land, with an asking price of P2,200,000.
• Cu-Unjieng offered to buy the property for P2,078,305.50 in a letter dated April 11, 1994, payable as 50% down and the balance in equal monthly installments over two years. He tendered PCIBank Check No. 565827 for P103,915.27, purportedly representing 10% of the down payment, which UBP acknowledged via Union Bank Receipt No. 495081.
• On August 30, 1994, Cu-Unjieng followed up on his offer. UBP replied on August 31, 1994 that the offer was awaiting the legal division’s opinion on the sale of “CARPable” assets. The bank later informed Cu-Unjieng on December 19, 1994 that the offer could not be favorably acted upon because the legal division opined that sales of lands covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law without prior DAR approval are void; the bank refunded the earnest money.
• Cu-Unjieng, through counsel, demanded a transfer and delivery of title under the April 11, 1994 offer. In response, UBP, via counsel, reiterated on July 19, 1995 that the land being carpable could only be disposed of through Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) or compulsory acquisition under Sec. 16 of RA 6657.
• On February 6, 1997, Cu-Unjieng filed a complaint in the RTC at Malolos, Bulacan (Civil Case No. 80-M-97) for Specific Performance and Damages, naming the Register of Deeds of Bulacan as co-defendant. The RTC dismissed the case on September 1, 1998 for lack of sufficient cause of action, but ordered UBP to reimburse the earnest money (P103,915.27) with interest.
• Cu-Unjieng appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 8177-B-UDK. The CA dismissed the appeal on May 10, 1999 for nonpayment of the docket and other lawful fees (Section 4, Rule 41; Section 1(c), Rule 50). Cu-Unjieng filed a Motion for Reconsideration with his attached appellant’s brief, which the CA denied on July 30, 1999 and expunged the brief.
• The Supreme Court reiterated that perfection of an appeal requires timely payment of docket fees; nonpayment renders the appeal defective and the appellate court lacking jurisdiction. It cited Pedrosa v. Hill and other cases to emphasize that payment within the reglementary period is mandatory and jurisdictional; belated payment four months after the period does not justify relief. The Court held that the CA correctly dismissed the appeal and affirmed the RTC decision.

---

Issues

1. Did the Court of Appeals correctly dismiss the appeal for nonpayment of the docket and other lawful fees?
2. Should the Court have relaxed procedural rules to permit perfection of the appeal despite belated payment of the docket fees?

---

Ruling

1. No — The Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the appeal for nonpayment; payment of docket and other lawful fees within the reglementary period is mandatory and jurisdictional, and nonpayment causes dismissal under Section 1(c), Rule 50.
2. No — The relaxation of procedural rules to permit perfection of the appeal despite belated payment is not warranted; while rules may be relaxed for weighty reasons, belated payment four months after the period does not constitute a sufficient basis to override mandatory requirements.

---

Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

• Payment of appellate docket fees within the period for taking an appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional; it is an essential step for perfection of an appeal and affects the appellate court’s jurisdiction (Rule 41, Sec. 4; Rule 50, Sec. 1).
• Nonpayment within the reglementary period results in dismissal of the appeal; perfection is not achieved by mere filing of a notice of appeal (Pedrosa v. Hill; Lazaro v. Court of Appeals; Navarro v. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co.).
• While the rules may be relaxed in some cases to prevent an injustice, such relaxation is not automatic and requires persuasive, weighty circumstances; in this case, payment was belated by approximately four months, and the Court found no equitable justification sufficient to set aside the CA’s dismissal.
• The Court emphasized that equity and substantial justice do not automatically override procedural rules; the decision of the CA to dismiss was proper given the belated payment.

---

Doctrine / Legal Principle

• Perfection of an appeal requires timely payment of docket fees; such payment is mandatory and jurisdictional.
• Failure to pay within the reglementary period deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction and results in dismissal.
• The judiciary may exercise discretion to relax procedural rules only for weighty reasons; belated payment after a substantial lapse is not per se a weighty reason.

---

Disposition

• The petition is DENIED.
• The assailed May 10, 1999 and July 30, 1999 resolutions of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.
• Costs against petitioner.

---

Concurring / Dissenting Opinions

• None reported as separate opinions; the decision indicates concurrence by Justices signing the opinion (the majority was joined by other justices).

---

Significance / Notes

• Reaffirms that perfection of an appeal is a jurisdictional, mandatory requirement anchored on timely payment of docket fees.
• Establishes that late payment (here, four months past the deadline) does not automatically warrant relaxation of procedural rules.
• Serves as a cautionary reminder to litigants that noncompliance with appellate filing requirements can foreclose appellate review, regardless of substantive rights in the underlying case.