[43] Boardwalk Business Ventures, Inc. v. Villareal, (PANDAPATAN) a.
a. PETITIONER erred in filing its Motion for Extension and paying
G.R. No. 181182 | Del Castillo, J. | Rule 42 the docket fees therefor with the RTC. It should have done so with
the CA as required by Section 12 of Rule 42 of the Rules of Court.
PETITIONER: Boardwalk Business Ventures, Inc. b. Due to the erroneous filing and payment of docket fees, it was as if
RESPONDENTS: Elvira Villareal no Motion for Extension was filed, and the subsequent March 7,
2007 filing of its Petition with the appellate court was beyond the
SUMMARY: PETITIONER filed a case of replevin against RESPONDENT reglementary 15-day period provided for under Rule 42.
before the MeTC. MeTC ruled for PETITIONER. Upon RESPONDENT’s appeal, c. PETITIONER’s prayer for a 30-day extension in its Motion for
RTC reversed. PETITIONER filed a Petition for Review (R42) which was denied Extension was irregular, because the maximum period that may be
by CA. SC essentially dismissed PETITIONER’s petition for review on certiorari granted is only 15 days pursuant to Section 1 of Rule 42.
for the same reasons as the CA’s which are that Petitioner: (a) failed to pay docket d. PETITIONER failed to include a board resolution or secretary's
fees with the CA; (b) failed to attach relevant pleadings and other material portions certificate showing that its claimed representative, Ma. Victoria M.
of the record; (c) filed a Motion for Extension for 30 days (Rules only allow 15). Lo (Lo), was authorized to sign the Petition
e. PETITIONER failed to attach to its Petition copies of the
DOCTRINE: The requirements for perfecting an appeal within the reglementary Complaint, Answer, position papers, memoranda and other relevant
period specified in the law must be strictly followed as they are considered pleadings, as required in Sections 2 and 3 of Rule 42, thus meriting
indispensable interdictions against needless delays. Moreover, the perfection of the outright dismissal of its Petition for Review.
an appeal in the manner and within the period set by law is not only mandatory ISSUE:
but jurisdictional as well, hence failure to perfect the same renders the judgment 1. WoN liberal construction of Rules is applicable. NO.
final and executory. And, just as a losing party has the privilege to file an appeal
within the prescribed period, so also does the prevailing party have the correlative RULING: WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals' April 25,
right to enjoy the finality of a decision in his favor. (Really, the doctrine is R42 2007 and December 21, 2007 Resolutions in CA-G.R. SP No. UDK 5711 are hereby
sec. 1-3 since PETITIONER failed to comply with almost everything) AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
FACTS:
1. This is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the CA’s outright dismissal RATIO: (See sec. 1-3 of Rule 42)
of Boardwalk Business Venture’s (PETITIONER) petition for review before On Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping
the former. 1. The Rules require that the Petition must be accompanied by a Verification and
2. PETITIONER is a duly organized and existing domestic corporation engaged Certification against forum shopping. If the petitioner is a juridical entity, as
in the selling of ready-to- wear (RTW) merchandise while Elvira Villareal in this case, it must be shown that the person signing in behalf of the
(RESPONDENT) is one of its distributors corporation is duly authorized to represent said corporation.
3. On October 20, 2005, PETITIONER filed an Amended Complaint for 2. Here, no SPA or Board Resolution was attached to the Petition showing that
replevin against RESPONDENT covering a 1995 Toyota Tamaraw FX, for Lo was authorized to sign the Petition or represent PETITIONER in the
the latter's alleged failure to pay a car loan obtained from the former. The proceedings. In addition, PETITIONER failed to attach to the Petition copies
case was filed with MeTC Manila Br. 27. of the relevant pleadings and other material portions of the record.
4. MeTC ruled in favor of PETITIONER. RTC reversed. RTC’s denial of 3. PETITIONER tried to cure these lapses by subsequently submitting a board
PETITIONER’s MR was received by PETITIONER on Jan. 19, 2007. resolution showing Lo's authority to sign and act on behalf of Boardwalk, as
5. On Feb. 7, 2007, PETITIONER through counsel filed with the Manila RTC well as copies of the relevant pleadings.
a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review, praying that it be 4. The SC acknowledged that it has, in several cases, relaxed the Rules.
granted 30 days, to file its Petition for Review. However, in this case, PETITIONER committed multiple violations of the
6. PETITIONER paid the docket and other legal fees therefor at the Office of rules which militates against its plea for leniency.
the Clerk of Court of the Manila RTC. A notice of appeal was also filed by 5. Further, PETITIONER failed to perfect its appeal by not filing the Petition
PETITIONER which was denied for being the wrong mode of appeal. within the reglementary period and paying the docket and other lawful fees
7. On March 7, 2007, PETITIONER filed through mail its Petition for Review before the proper court. These requirements are mandatory and jurisdictional.
with the CA. On Where to Pay Docket Fees
8. CA denied PETITIONER’s petition for the following reasons:
6. Sec. 1 of Rule 42 is explicit that the docket fees for a Petition for Review
should be paid to the clerk of the CA. PETITIONER paid the RTC.
7. PETITIONER’s subsequent payment to the clerk of the CA of the docket fees
and other lawful fees did not cure the defect. It was still late and done long
after the reglementary period.
On Motion for Extension
8. Sec. 1 of Rule 42 only allows an extension of 15 days. Beyond that, there must
be a showing of a compelling reason. PETITIONER never gave a compelling
reason. Further, PETITIONER prayed for 30 days which is irregular.
9. Even if the 15-day period were granted by the CA, PETITIONER failed to
meet the Feb. 19 deadline as it only actually filed its Petition on March 7,
2007.
Appeal was never perfected
10. Sec. 8 of Rule 42 provides that the appeal is deemed perfected as to the
petitioner "upon the timely filing of a petition for review and the payment of
the corresponding docket and other lawful fees."
11. Undisputably, PETITIONER's appeal was not perfected because of its failure
to timely file the Petition and to pay the docket and other lawful fees before
the proper court which is the CA. Consequently, the CA properly dismissed
outright the Petition because it never acquired jurisdiction over the same. As
a result, the RTC's Decision had long become final and executory.
