University of the Philippines College of Law

MSI 2D

Topic Objectives of, and power to promulgate, rules of pleading, practice, and procedure
Case No. G.R. No. 138758. July 6, 2000
Case Name Chan v. CA and Sps. Geronimo
Ponente Bellosillo, J.

RELEVANT FACTS
 August 16, 1995: private respondents Sps. Geronimo engaged the services of Chan as their financial consultant in
obtaining a loan with Banco Filipino. Under the Memorandum of Agreement they signed, the spouses will pay Chan
a “success fee” of 10% of the approved loan amount.
o Their loan application was approved in the amount of P20.6 Million. However, despite Chan’s repeated
demands, they failed to pay him the stipulated “success fee.”
 October 29, 1996: Chan filed a complaint for collection of a sum of money against the Geronimos before the RTC
Makati.
 December 11, 1997: RTC ruled in favor of Chan and ordered the Geronimos to pay him the sum of P2.06 Million,
with legal interest and attorney’s fees.
 January 20, 1998: the Geronimos filed a Notice of Appeal (NOA) with the RTC. 1 However, they failed to pay the
corresponding legal fees. As a result, Chan filed a Manifestation that the NOA filed by them was not accompanied
by “proof of payment of the appellate court docket as other lawful fees” as required by Sec. 4, Rule 41 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure.
o RTC issued an order denying the NOA for non-compliance of paying the required legal fees.
 February 17, 1998: the Geronimos filed an MR, which was opposed by Chan and also subsequently denied on March
12, 1998.
 April 3, 1998: the Geronimos filed a Petition for Review with the CA for the reversal of the RTC’s orders.
o Chan’s comment: As per Sec. 1, Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, an appeal may be dismissed
by the Court of Appeals either on its own motion or upon motion of the appellee on the ground of failure
of appellant to pay the docket and other lawful fees as provided in Sec. 4, Rule 41 of the same Rules.
 December 23, 1998: CA granted the Petition and annulled the previous orders of the RTC. It ruled that under Sec. 6,
Rule 46 of the Revised Rules of Court2, the payment of docket fees before the clerk of court of the lower court is
optional on the part of the appellant and the latter may choose to pay the fee to the clerk of the appellate court
instead. Citing Dizon v. Encarnacion, it ruled that the RTC has not authority to deny due course to the appeal when
the NOA was timely filed solely on the basis of failure to pay the fees to its clerk of court.
 January 12, 1999: Chan filed his MR of the CA’s decision. He averred that the CA erroneously invoked Sec. 6, Rule 46
and Sec. 1, par. (d), Rule 50 of the Revised Rules of Court. He maintained that these provisions were already
superseded by Sec. 4, Rule 41, and Sec. 1, Rule 50, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
 April 20, 1999: CA denied the MR.
 Hence, this Rule 65 Petition for Certiorari.

ISSUE AND RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue Ratio
W/N the CA erroneously invoked YES, Sec. 6, Rule 46 and Sec. 1, par. (d), Rule 50 of the Revised Rules of Court are already
the Revised Rules of Court superseded by Sec. 4, Rule 41, and Sec. 1, Rule 50, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

1
Note: There was no mention of when they received the decision for purposes of counting the 15-day reglementary period.
However, the decision notes that they filed their NOA within the prescribed period.
2
Note: I can’t find any copy of the superseded Revised Rules of Court </3
 University of the Philippines College of Law
MSI 2D

 Effective July 1, 1997, Rules 1 to 71 of the Revised Rules of Court have already
been superseded by the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure after the amendment
or revision was approved by the Court on April 8, 1997.
 Under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure now invoked by Chan, a notice of
appeal must be filed within the 15-days reglementary period from receipt of
the decision or order appealed from and the docket and other lawful fees
must also be paid within the same period.
 Sec. 4, Rule 41, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure explicitly provides that
payment of the full amount of the appellate court docket and other lawful
fees should be made within the period for taking an appeal before the clerk
of court which rendered the judgment or order appealed from. Thus, contrary
to the position taken by the appellate court, the place of payment of docket
fees is not optional but mandatory on the appellant.
 The Geronimos failed to comply with these requirements when they filed their
NOA before the clerk of court of the lower court within the prescribed period,
but without the corresponding docket fees. Although they claimed to be
suffering from financial difficulties, ample time had been given them to
comply with the requirement, forty (40) days from the time they filed their
NOA to the time the RTC dismissed their appeal. In fact, it is almost incredible
that after having received a loan of P20,600,000.00 private respondents
would be unable to pay the legal fees for their appeal.
 The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly Sec 1, par. (c), provides that an
appeal may be dismissed by the CA on its own motion, or of that of the
appellee, on the ground among others of failure of the appellant to pay the
docket and other lawful fees as provided in Sec. 4 Rule 41.

RULING

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is GRANTED. The 23 December 1998 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 47343 subject
of the instant petition is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE, and this case is remanded to the trial court for execution of its judgment.

SEPARATE OPINIONS

NOTES
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure

Rule 41, Sec. 4. Appellate court docket and other lawful fees. Within the period for taking an appeal, the appellant shall pay
to the clerk of the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from, the full amount of the appellate court
docket and other lawful fees. Proof of payment of said fees shall be transmitted to the appellate court together with the
original record or the record on appeal.

Rule 50, Sec. 1. Grounds for dismissal of appeal. An appeal may be dismissed by the Court of Appeals, on its own motion or
on that of the appellee, on the following grounds: xxx