THIRD DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 186102, February 24, 2016]

NATIONAL TRANSMISSION CORPORATION,
PETITIONER, VS. HEIRS OF TEODULO EBESA, NAMELY:
PORFERIA L. EBESA, EFREN EBESA, DANTE EBESA
AND CYNTHIA EBESA, AND ATTY. FORTUNATO VELOSO,
RESPONDENTS.

DECISION
REYES, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari[1] filed under Rule 45
of the Rules of Court, assailing the Resolution[2] dated January
14, 2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB CV No.
01380, which dismissed the appeal on the ground of non-
payment of appeal fees.
The Facts of the Case

The National Transmission Corporation (NTC) is a

government-owned and controlled corporation (GOCC) created
and existing by virtue of Republic Act No. 9136, under which it
is granted the authority to exercise the power of eminent
domain.[3]

Early in 2005, NTC filed a case to expropriate the 1,479-

square-meter portion of Lot No. 18470, covered by Original
Certificate of Title No. 1852, which has a total area of 6,014 sq
m and situated in Quiot, Pardo, Cebu City. It is declared under
the co-ownership of the heirs of Teodulo Ebesa, namely,
Porferia Ebesa, Efren Ebesa, Dante Ebesa and Cynthia Ebesa
Ramirez (Heirs of Ebesa), but is occupied by Atty. Fortunato
Veloso (Veloso) (respondents), who allegedly purchased the
property, as evidenced by an unregistered Deed of Sale. NTC
alleged that the acquisition of an easement right-of-way over a
portion of the subject property is necessary for the
construction and maintenance of the 138KV DC/ST
Transmission Line (Tie Line) of the Quiot (Pardo) 100MVA
Substation Project in Cebu City, an undertaking that partook of
a public purpose.

In his Answer, Veloso, acting as his own counsel in

collaboration with Atty. Nilo Ahat, conceded that the project
was indeed intended for a public purpose but disputed its
necessity and urgency. He alleged that the project will not only
affect a portion of the property but its entirety considering
that the construction entails the installation of huge
permanent steel towers and the air space directly above the
subject property will be permanently occupied with
transmission lines. Ultimately, the NTC wanted to acquire not
only an easement of right-of-way but a site location for its
permanent structures and improvements which seriously
affects the marketability of the remainder of the property
which was incidentally classified as residential in character.

On April 22, 2005, NTC filed an Urgent Motion for the

Issuance of a Writ of Possession alleging that it has deposited
with the Land Bank of the Philippines the amount of
P11,300.00, representing the assessed value of the subject
property and that it has served Notice to Take Possession to
interested parties.[6]

On July 15, 2005, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City,
Branch 21, issued an order of expropriation, declaring that the
NTC has a lawful right to take the subject property and use the
same for the intended public purpose subject to the payment
of just compensation which shall be based on its value at the
time of the filing of the complaint.[7]

On July 20, 2005, the NTC filed a compliance informing the

RTC that it already complied with the requirement for the
payment of just compensation based on the Bureau of Internal
Revenue zonal valuation and prayed for the immediate
issuance of a writ of possession. Thereafter, on July 21, 2005,
the RTC issued an order for the issuance of a writ of
possession.[8]
On August 2, 2005, the RTC issued an order, directing the NTC
and Veloso to submit within 10 days from receipt thereof the
name of the individuals respectively nominated by them to be
appointed as commissioners tasked to determine the amount
of just compensation for the subject property. Thereafter, in an
Order dated August 25, 2005, the RTC appointed Alfio Robles
(Robles), Rodulfo Lafradez, Jr. (Lafradez Jr.) and Wilfredo
Muntuerto (Muntuerto) as commissioners. The Board of
Commissioners were directed to include in its report (1) the
amount of fair market value of the property sought to be
expropriated, (2) the existence and value of improvements, (3)
the existence and value of consequential damages, if any, on
the remainder of the property, and (4) the existence and value
of consequential benefits, if any, to be derived by the owner of
the subject property.[9]

On September 22, 2005, the Board of Commissioners

submitted a Commissioner's Report with Dissenting Opinion.
In the majority opinion penned by Muntuerto and Lafradez Jr.,
both believed that the applicable fair market value for the year
2005 is P6,222.42 per sq m and that the remainder of the
property suffered consequential damage equivalent to 70% of
its fair market value. On the other hand, Robles, in his dissent,
opined that the applicable fair market value is P3,100.00 per
sq m and that no consequential damage was suffered. Both the
NTC and Veloso submitted their respective oppositions to the
report.[10]
Ruling of the RTC

On January 9, 2006, the RTC rendered a Decision,[11] upholding

the majority opinion in the report of the Board of
Commissioners, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, all the foregoing premises considered,
judgment is hereby rendered:

Fixing the just compensation which [the NTC] must pay

[Veloso] for the land with an area of 1,479 square meters
described in the complaint in the reasonable amount of
P35,179,984.88.

Directing [NTC] to pay [Veloso] interest at the legal rate on the

amount of just compensation from the time writ of possession
was issued and until the said amount shall have been paid in
full. The amount initially paid by [NTC] to [Veloso] based upon
the relevant B1R zonal valuation shall accordingly be deducted
the same being part payment of the just compensation
payable.

Directing the [NTC] to either immediately pay [Veloso] the

amount of just compensation fixed herein plus the mandated
interest plus the costs and retain the possession taken by it
under Section 2, Rule 67 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
of the land x x x subject of this case, or, immediately return to
[Veloso] the possession of the land subject of this case and
await finality of this judgment before paying the just
compensation fixed herein, it being clear from Section 10, Rule
67 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure that [the NTC's] right
to retain the possession of the subject land which it took
pursuant of Section 2, Rule 67 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, is predicated upon its payment of the just
compensation fixed in this judgment.

Declaring the condemnation or expropriation of the subject

land with an area of 1,479 square meters described in the
complaint for the public use or stated in the complaint, that is,
to enable the [NTC] to construct and maintain its 138KV
DC/ST Transmission Li[n]e (Tie Line) of the Quiot (Pardo)
100MVA Substation Project, upon payment of the just
compensation fixed above plus the applicable interest.

Declaring that [NTC] shall have the right to transfer the

subject property in its name and own the same in perpetuity
after it shall have paid in full the above amount of just
compensation and the legal interest provided for.

SO ORDERED.[12]
On January 24, 2006, the NTC filed a Motion for
Reconsideration,[13] alleging that the foregoing decision was
not supported by facts and existing laws. The RTC, however,
denied the same in its Order dated February 14, 2006.
Unyielding, the NTC appealed with the CA.[14]

On July 31, 2006, the CA directed the NTC to submit official

receipt or proof of payment of the appeal fees within 10 days
from notice.[15]

On August 18, 2006, the NTC filed a Manifestation, alleging

that it cannot comply with the order of the CA as it did not pay
appeal docket fees. It asseverated that the receiving clerk of
the RTC did not accept its payment for the appeal fees on the
ground that it is exempted from doing so, being a GOCC.[16]

On September 14, 2006, the respondents filed a Motion to

Dismiss, arguing that the RTC's Decision dated January 9,
2006 has become final and executory since the payment of
docket fees is mandatory and jurisdictional and non-payment
thereof will not toll the running of the appeal period. The
respondents further pointed out the NTC's failure to file the
record on appeal which is required under Section 2, Rule 41 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.[17]

The NTC, on September 27, 2006, filed another Manifestation,

informing the CA that it already filed on September 18, 2006 a
Manifestation with Urgent Ex-Parte Motion with the RTC and
settled the payment of appeal fees. The NTC also submitted
the official receipts for the said payment.[18]

On March 27, 2007, the respondents filed a Motion for Leave

to File Supplemental Motion to Dismiss, with the attached
Supplemental Motion to Dismiss, seeking to notify the CA that
the RTC denied the NTC's motion to accept its belated tender
of appeal docket fees and its motion for reconsideration.[19]

In its Comment to the respondents' motion, the NTC claimed

that it was in good faith and that the failure to pay the appeal
docket fees was attributable to the receiving clerk of the RTC.
It also alleged that it had already paid the appeal docket fees
and the belated payment does not preclude the CA from taking
cognizance of the appeal. Finally, it claimed that the notice of
appeal was valid and that the record on appeal is not required.
[20]

Ruling of the CA

On January 14, 2009, the CA issued the assailed Resolution,

granting the respondents' motion to dismiss, the dispositive
portion of which reads:
Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss and Supplemental Motion
to Dismiss filed by [the respondents] are hereby GRANTED.

SO ORDERED.[21]

The CA held that the NTC's counsel should know that as a

GOCC, it is not exempted from the payment of docket and
other legal fees. Such knowledge can be presumed from the
fact that NTC was required initiatory filing fees when it filed
the expropriation case and was even prepared to defray appeal
fees. The CA found it preposterous for the NTC's counsel to
blindly rely on the receiving clerk's advice knowing fully well
the importance of paying the docket and other legal fees. The
NTC's counsel was negligent and the reason for his omission
can hardly be characterized as excusable.[22]

The CA added that even granting that the NTC timely paid the
appeal docket fees, its appeal would still not prosper for non-
filing of a record on appeal.[23]

Unyielding, the NTC, in its present appeal, contends that the

failure to pay appeal docket fees does not automatically cause
the dismissal of the appeal, but lies on the discretion of the
court. It asseverates that since its failure to pay the appeal
fees was not willful and deliberate, its omission could be
excused in the interest of justice and equity. It reiterates that it
was prepared to pay the docket fees if not for the receiving
clerk's advice that the same was not necessary as it is a GOCC.
Even then, it eventually paid the appeal fees, although past the
reglementary period.[24]

In the same manner, the NTC argues that it is erroneous for

the CA to require the filing of a record on appeal and deem the
case also dismissible on that ground. It asserts that Section 1,
Rule 50 of the Rules of Court confers only a discretionary
power, not a duty, upon the CA to dismiss the appeal based on
the failure to file a record on appeal as can be deduced from
the use of the word "may". The CA may thus exercise its
discretion to dismiss the appeal or not, taking into
consideration the reason behind the omission. And, in this
case, the NTC believes that the record on appeal is no longer
necessary since the first stage of expropriation had already
been concluded and no appeal was taken on it. The order
recognizing the power to expropriate had long become final
and the only issue left is the amount of just compensation.[25]
Ruling of the Court

It has been repeatedly underscored in a long line of

jurisprudence that the right to appeal is a mere statutory
privilege and must be exercised only in the manner and in
accordance with the provisions of the law. Thus, one who seeks
to avail of the right to appeal must strictly comply with the
requirements of the rules, and failure to do so leads to the loss
of the right to appeal.[26]

Basically, there are three requirements in order to perfect an

appeal: (1) the filing of a notice of appeal; (2) the payment of
docket and other legal fees; and (3) in some cases, the filing of
a record on appeal, all of which must be done within the
period allowed for filing an appeal. Failure to observe any of
these requirements is fatal to one's appeal.

In the instant case, the NTC bewails the dismissal of its appeal
for non-payment of appeal docket fees. Specifically, it claims
that its failure to pay the appeal fees was due to the erroneous
advice of the RTC's receiving clerk. It implores the liberality of
the Court that its omission be deemed as an excusable neglect
as it was ready and willing to pay the docket fees.
WON the CA erred in dismissing the appeal of the NTC due to
non-payment of appeal docket fees
The CA was right.

In M.A. Santander Construction, Inc. v. Villanueva,[27] the

Court emphasized, thus:
The mere filing of the Notice of Appeal is not enough, for it
must be accompanied by the payment of the correct appellate
docket fees. Payment in full of docket fees within the
prescribed period is mandatory. It is an essential requirement
without which the decision appealed from would become final
and executory as if no appeal had been filed. Failure to perfect
an appeal within the prescribed period is not a mere
technicality but jurisdictional and failure to perfect an appeal
renders the judgment final and executory.[28] (Citations
omitted)

Verily, the payment of appeal docket fees is both mandatory

and jurisdictional. It is mandatory as it is required in all
appealed cases, otherwise, the Court does not acquire the
authority to hear and decide the appeal. The failure to pay or
even the partial payment of the appeal fees does not toll the
running of the prescriptive period, hence, will not prevent
the judgment from becoming final and executory. Such was the
circumstance in the instant appeal. The NTC failed to pay the
appeal fees without justifiable excuse. That its counsel or his
representative was misled by the advice of the receiving clerk
of the RTC is unacceptable as the exercise of ordinary
diligence could have avoided such a blunder. It is apparent
from the records that the NTC had ample time to rectify the
error or clarify its reservation regarding the propriety of its
supposed exemption from the appeal fees. It received a copy of
the RTC Decision dated January 9, 2006 on January 10,
2006[29] and the Order denying its motion for reconsideration
on February 17, 2006[30] and had until March 6, 2006 to file a
notice of appeal and pay the corresponding docket fees.
[31]
NTC's counsel, through his representative, did file a notice
of appeal as early as February 17, 2006 but did not pay the
docket fees apparently because of the advice of the receiving
clerk of the RTC, although he was ready and willing to pay the
amount at that time. If the NTC came prepared to the trial
court with the necessary voucher to settle the docket fees at
the time of filing of the notice of appeal, it understood that it
was not exempted from paying the said fees. This can be
further deduced from the fact that the NTC was required to
pay filing fees with the RTC at the commencement of the
action.

Further, NTC's counsel should have been diligent enough to

inquire whether the appeal had been properly filed and that
the corresponding fees were accordingly paid knowing fully
well the significance of these considerations. Had he only
bothered to do so, he would have known about the non-
payment of the filing fees and could have easily consulted with
other lawyers to settle this uncertainty. The NTC, a GOCC,
maintains a pool of learned lawyers, who must have had
exposure with expropriation cases. He could have easily
confirmed from them the necessity of paying the docket fees
and settled it promptly especially since there are still a
number of days left after the notice of appeal was filed.

The implication of the timely payment of docket fees cannot be

overemphasized. "The payment of the full amount of the
docket fee is a sine qua non requirement for the perfection of
an appeal. The court acquires jurisdiction over the case only
upon the payment of the prescribed docket fees."[32]

Indeed, there are instances when the Court relaxed the rule
and allowed the appeal to run its full course. In La Salette
College v. Pilotin,[33] the Court ruled:
Notwithstanding the mandatory nature of the requirement of
payment of appellate docket fees, we also recognize that its
strict application is qualified by the following: first, failure to
pay those fees within the reglementary period allows only
discretionary, not automatic, dismissal; second, such power
should be used by the court in conjunction with its exercise of
sound discretion in accordance with the tenets of justice and
fair play, as well as with a great deal of circumspection in
consideration of all attendant circumstances.

In Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority v.

Mangubat, the payment of the docket fees was delayed by six
(6) days, but the late payment was accepted, because the party
showed willingness to abide by the Rules by immediately
paying those fees. Yambao v. Court of Appeals saw us again
relaxing the Rules when we declared therein that "the
appellate court may extend the time for the payment of the
docket fees if appellant is able to show that there is a
justifiable reason for x x x the failure to pay the correct
amount of docket fees within the prescribed period, like fraud,
accident, mistake, excusable negligence, or a similar
supervening casualty, without fault on the part of the
appellant."[34] (Citations omitted and italics in the original)

In the present case, the NTC failed to present any justifiable

excuse for its failure to pay the docket fees like in the cases
of Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority v.
Manguhat[35] and Yambao v. CA.[36] In Mactan Cebu
International Airport Authority, the petitioner took the
initiative to verify the necessity of paying the docket fees and
paid it outright, albeit six days after the lapse of the period to
appeal. Quite the opposite, the NTC in the present case never
lifted a linger until it was required by the CA to present proof
of its payment of the docket fees and paid the same only six
months after the period to appeal has prescribed.

The NTC cannot also invoke the ruling of the Court in Yambao
as it does not share the same factual milieu as in the instant
case. In Yambao, the petitioner expressed willingness to pay by
settling the docket fee of P820.00 within the period of appeal,
however, deficient in the amount of P20.00 due to the
erroneous assessment of the receiving clerk of the RTC. In the
instant case, the NTC did not pay at all and solely attributed
the blame on the supposed advice of the receiving clerk of the
RTC about its exemption from the payment of docket fees
notwithstanding circumstances that would have expectedly
stirred second thoughts. Its unthinking reliance on the alleged
advice of the receiving clerk is utterly irresponsible and
inexcusable.

Apart from failure to pay the docket fees, the NTC likewise
failed to file a record on appeal. Apparently, the NTC is of the
impression that the record on appeal is only necessary when
what is being appealed is the first phase of the action, that is,
the order of condemnation or expropriation, but not when the
appeal concerns the second phase of expropriation or the
judgment on the payment of just compensation.[37]

In Municipality of Bihan v. Judge Garcia,[38] the Court

elucidated, thus:
There are two (2) stages in every action of expropriation. The
first is concerned with the determination of the authority of
the plaintiff to exercise the power of eminent domain and the
propriety of its exercise in the context of the facts involved in
the suit. It ends with an order, if not of dismissal of the action,
"of condemnation declaring that the plaintiff has a lawful right
to take the property sought to be condemned, for the public
use or purpose described in the complaint, upon the payment
of just compensation to be determined as of the date of the
filing of the complaint." x x x.

The second phase of the eminent domain action is concerned

with the determination by the Court of "the just compensation
for the property sought to be taken." This is done by the Court
with the assistance of not more than three (3) commissioners,
x x x.[39] (Citations omitted)
NTC asseverates that the rationale for requiring the record on
appeal in cases where several judgments are rendered is to
enable the appellate court to decide the appeal without the
original record which should remain with the court a
quo pending disposal of the case with respect to the other
defendants or issues. This usually happens in expropriation
cases, when an order of expropriation or condemnation is
appealed, while the issue of just compensation is still being
resolved with the trial court.[40] It is the contention of the NTC
that considering that the first phase of the action had already
been concluded and no appeal was taken, the record on appeal
is no longer necessary. There is no longer any issue on the
order of expropriation, the appeal having been made on the
just compensation only.

The issue replicates that which had been resolved by the Court
in National Power Corporation v. Judge Paderanga[41] In the
said case, the trial court upheld the propriety of the order of
condemnation of the property and proceeded to deliberate on
the just compensation due the defendants, notwithstanding the
failure of one of the defendants to file answer. The petitioner,
however, appealed the amount of the just compensation
awarded by the trial court but dispensed with the filing of a
record on appeal. For this reason, the trial court dismissed the
petitioner's appeal, holding that the latter did not perfect its
appeal due to its failure to file the record on appeal. The CA
affirmed the dismissal and this was upheld by this Court. The
Court ruled:
That the defendant Enriquez did not file an answer to the
complaint did not foreclose the possibility of an appeal arising
therefrom. For Section 3 of Rule 67 provides:
Sec. 3. Defenses and objections, x x x.

xxxx

A defendant waives all defenses and objections not so alleged

but the court, in the interest of justice, may permit
amendments to the answer to be made not later than ten (10)
days from the filing thereof. However, at the trial of the issue
of just compensation, whether or not a defendant has
previously appeared or answered, he may present evidence
as to the amount of the compensation to he paid for his
properly, and he may share in the distribution of the award, x x
x.

In other words, once the compensation for Enriquez' property

is placed in issue at the trial, she could, following the third
paragraph of the immediately-quoted Section 3 of Rule 67,
participate therein and if she is not in conformity with the trial
courts determination of the compensation, she can appeal
therefrom.

Multiple or separate appeals being existent in the present

expropriation case, NPC should have filed a record on appeal
within 30 days from receipt of the trial court's decision. The
trial court's dismissal of its appeal, which was affirmed by the
appellate court, was thus in order.[42] (Emphasis, underscoring
and italics in the original)

The same ratiocination holds with respect to the instant case.

While Veloso's co-defendants, the Heirs of Ebesa, did not file
any objection to the order of condemnation, they may at any
time question the award of just compensation that may be
awarded by the trial court. While there was an allegation that
the property had already been sold by the Heirs of Ebesa to
Veloso, the extent of the said unregistered sale was not
specified hence it is not unlikely that the former have
remaining interest over the subject property. No proof was
likewise presented that the property or portion thereof was
already transferred under Veloso's sole ownership. As it is, the
Heirs of Ebesa are still the declared owners of the property in
the title, hence, the probability that they will file a separate
appeal is not remote. It is for this reason that the record on
appeal is being required under the Rules of Court and the
NTC's insistence that it is unnecessary and dispensable lacked
factual and legal basis.

Finally, the pronouncement of the Court in Gonzales, et al. v.

Pe[43] finds relevance in the instant case, thus:
While every litigant must be given the amplest opportunity for
the proper and just determination of his cause, free from the
constraints of technicalities, the failure to perfect an appeal
within the reglementary period is not a mere technicality. It
raises jurisdictional problem, as it deprives the appellate court
of its jurisdiction over the appeal. After a decision is declared
final and executory, vested rights are acquired by the winning
party. Just as a losing party has the right to appeal within the
prescribed period, the winning party has the correlative right
to enjoy the finality of the decision on the case.[44] (Citation
omitted)

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing disquisition, the

Resolution dated January 14, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CEB CV No. 01380 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.