CHAN V.

COURT OF APPEALS (Bellosillo, 2000)

Doctrine
The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure has effectively superseded Rule 1-71 of the Revised Rules of Court.
In filing an appeal, it is mandatory to pay the required docket and other legal fees before the clerk of court
which rendered the judgment or order appealed from.

Facts
- Petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of ROC, praying to annul the decision of CA on December 1998 ruling in
favor of private respondents, and its resolution denying petitioners Motion for recon.
- According to the MOA: on August 1995, Respondents Sps. Geronimo engaged the services of Petitioner Chan
as their financial consultant in order to obtain a loan from Banco Filipino, with the agreement that Chan will
be paid a success fee (=10% of the loan)
- Chan assisted the spouses in their loan application and then was successful in obtaining a loan of
P20,600,000. However, Chan was not paid the success fee despite repeated demands.
- Chan filed a complaint for collection of a sum of money in RTC of Makati City, which ruled in his favor and
order the Spouses to pay Chan P2,060,000 + interest and attorneys fees.
- Respondents filed a Notice of Appeal with the RTC, but was not able to pay the required legal fees, so
Petitioner filed a Manifestation that the Notice of Appeal was not accompanied by a Proof of Payment of the
appellate court docket and other legal fees as required by Sec. 4, Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure(RCP).
- RTC issued an order denying the appeal for the failure of the respondents to pay the required legal fees. MFR
was also denied.
- The Spouses filed a Petition for Review with CA praying the reversal of the RTC order. Chan opposed saying
that, in accordance with Sec. 1, Rule 50 of 1997 RCP, an appeal may be dismissed by the CA either upon its
own motion or the motion of the appellee on ground of the failure of appellant to pay the required docket and
other legal fees.
- CA set aside RTC order saying that payment of the docket fees before the clerk of the lower court is non-
mandatory or non-compulsory. It is the option of the appellant to pay the docket fees either before the clerk
of the LC or before the clerk of the appellate court (relying on Sec. 6, Rule 46 of Rev. ROC).
- CA added that accdg. to Dizon v. Encarnacion: LC is not empowered by law to deny due course of appeal if
the notice of appeal is filed on time on the mere failure of appellant to pay the docket fees before its clerk.
- Chan filed MFR stating that CA erroneously invoked Sec. 6, Rule 46 of Rev. ROC since the Rev. ROC is no
longer applicable and has already been superseded by 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. MFR was denied.

Issues: Which Rule is applicable? The Revised Rules of Court or the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure?

Held: Petition has merit. 1997 Rules of Civil Procedures, effective July 1, 1997, has already superseded Rules 1-71
of Rev. ROC.

Ratio

- Accdg. to the 1997 RCP, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the 15-day reglementary period from the
receipt of the order appealed from, the docket and other legal fees should also be paid within same period.
Also, in sec. 4, Rule 41 of 1997 RCP, docket and other legal fees must be paid in full before the clerk of court
which rendered the judgment or order appealed from. Place of payment is mandatory, not optional, on the
part of the appellants.
- Also, an appeal may be dismissed by CA by its own motion, or of that of the appelle, on the ground of failure
of appellant to pay the docket and other legal fees. RTC was correct in denying the appeal of spouses.
- Respondents also cannot claim that financial constraint prevented them from paying the fees since they were
given ample time to comply with the requirements which was 40 days from the time they filed the Notice of
Appeal to the time RTC dismissed their appeal. Also, they just loaned P20,600,000.

Dispositive: Petition Granted.

Gilbert Kintanar