-
7/23/2019 Panay Railways Inc vs Heva Mgt and Devt Corp GR No 154061
1/7
Republic of the Philippines
Supreme CourtManila
SECOND DIVISION
PANAY RAILWAYS INC.,
Petitioner,
- versus -
HEVA MANAGEMENT and
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
PAMPLONA AGROIND!STRIAL
CORPORATION, and SPO!SES
CANDELARIA DAYOT and
EDM!NDO DAYOT,
Respondents.
G. R. No. "#$%&"
Pre'ent(
CARPIO,J., Chairperson,
PEREZ,SEREO,
RE!ES,and
PER"AS-#ERA#E,JJ.
Pro$ul%ated&
'anuar( )*, )+)
) )
D E C I S I O N
SERENO,J.:
he present Petition ste$s fro$ the dis$issal b( the Re%ional rial Court
RC/ of Iloilo Cit( of a otice of Appeal for petitioners failure to pa( the
correspondin% doc0et fees.
he facts are as follo1s&
On )+ April 23), petitioner Pana( Rail1a(s Inc., a %overn$ent-o1ned and
controlled corporation, e4ecuted a Real Estate Mort%a%e Contract coverin% several
parcels of lands, includin% "ot o. 5*6, in favor of raders Ro(al #an0 R#/ to
secure )+ $illion 1orth of loan and credit acco$$odations. Petitioner e4cluded
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/154061.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/154061.htm#_ftn1 -
7/23/2019 Panay Railways Inc vs Heva Mgt and Devt Corp GR No 154061
2/7
certain portions of "ot o. 5*6& that alread( sold to Shell Co., Inc. referred to as
5*6-#, a road referred to as 5*6-C, and a s7uatter area 0no1n as 5*6-8.9:
Petitioner failed to pa( its obli%ations to R#, pro$ptin% the ban0 to e4tra-
;udiciall( foreclose the $ort%a%ed properties includin% "ot o. 5*6. On )+'anuar( 235, a Certificate of Sale 1as issued in favor of the ban0 as the hi%hest
bidder and purchaser. Conse7uentl(, the sale of "ot o. 5*6 1as re%istered 1ith
the Re%ister of 8eeds on )3 'anuar( 235 and annotated at the bac0 of the transfer
certificates of title C/ coverin% the $ort%a%ed properties.
hereafter, R# caused the consolidation of the title in its na$e on the basis
of a 8eed of Sale and an Affidavit of Consolidation after petitioner failed to
e4ercise the ri%ht to redee$ the properties. he correspondin% Cs 1ere
subse7uentl( issued in the na$e of the ban0.
On ) ed $ana%er
and officer-in-char%e and 1ith the assistance of counsel, filed a Manifestation and
Motion to =ithdra1 Motion for Suspension of the Petition for the issuance of a
1rit of possession.9):he pertinent portions of the Manifestation and Motion state&
6. hat after %oin% over the records of this case and the case of
raders Ro(al #an0 vs. Pana( Rail1a(, Inc., Civil Case o. 3)3+, PRI
is irrevocabl( 1ithdra1in% its Motion for Suspension referred to inpara%raph above, and its Motion for Reconsideration referred in
para%raph ) above and 1ill accept and abide b( the Septe$ber ), 22+
Order den(in% the Motion
-
7/23/2019 Panay Railways Inc vs Heva Mgt and Devt Corp GR No 154061
3/7
evidenced b( the Certificate of Sale dated 'anuar( )+, 235 and the
Certificates of itles issued to Petitioner?
5. T*at PRI 6urt*er man-6e't' t*at -t *a' no pa't, pre'ent or
6uture oppo'-t-on to t*e rant o6 t*e Wr-t o6 Po''e''-on to TR3 o;er
t*e par+e1' o6 1and ment-oned -n pararap* $ a5o;e and 'u5?e+t o6
t*-' Pet-t-on and e;en a''um-n aruendo t*at -t *a', PRI
-rre;o+a51< 0a-;e' t*e 'ame. T*at PRI 0-11 e;en a''-'t TR3 -n
'e+ur-n po''e''-on o6 'a-d propert-e' a' 0-tne'' aa-n't '@uatter',
-11ea1 o++upant', and a11 ot*er po''-51e +1a-mant'?
. hat upon e4ecution hereof, PRI ;o1untar-1< 'urrender'
p*
-
7/23/2019 Panay Railways Inc vs Heva Mgt and Devt Corp GR No 154061
4/7
pointed out that the Manifestation 1as e4ecuted b( petitioners dul( authori>ed
representative 1ith the assistance of counsel. his ad$ission thus operated as a
1aiver barrin% petitioner fro$ clai$in% other1ise.
On Au%ust 22, petitioner filed a otice of Appeal 1ithout pa(in% thenecessar( doc0et fees. I$$ediatel( thereafter, respondents filed a Motion to
8is$iss Appeal on the %round of nonpa($ent of doc0et fees.
In its Opposition,9:petitioner alle%ed that its counsel 1as not (et fa$iliar
1ith the revisions of the Rules of Court that beca$e effective onl( on 'ul( 22.
Its representative 1as li0e1ise not infor$ed b( the court personnel that doc0et fees
needed to be paid upon the filin% of the otice of Appeal.
-
7/23/2019 Panay Railways Inc vs Heva Mgt and Devt Corp GR No 154061
5/7
hereafter, respondents filed their respective Motions for Reconsideration.
It appears that prior to the pro$ul%ation of the CAs 8ecision, this Court
issued Ad$inistrative Matter A.M./ o. ++-)-+-SC 1hich too0 effect on Ma(
)+++, a$endin% Rule @, Sec. and Sec. 6 of Rule @ of the 22 Revised Rulesof Court. he circular e4pressl( provided that trial courts $a(, motu proprioor
upon $otion, dis$iss an appeal for bein% filed out of ti$e or for nonpa($ent of
doc0et and other la1ful fees 1ithin the re%le$entar( period. Subse7uentl(,
Circular o. @3-)+++96:1as issued on )2 Au%ust )+++ and 1as addressed to all
lo1er courts.
#( virtue of the a$end$ent to Sec. @, the CA upheld the 7uestioned Orders
of the trial court b( issuin% the assailed A$ended 8ecision9@:in the present Petition
%rantin% respondents Motion for Reconsideration.
he CAs action pro$pted petitioner to file a Motion for Reconsideration
alle%in% that SC Circular o. @3-)+++ should not be %iven retroactive effect. It also
alle%ed that the CA should consider the case as e4ceptionall( $eritorious.
Petitioners counsel, Att(. Re4es B. Ale;ano, e4plained that he 1as (et to fa$iliari>e
hi$self 1ith the Revised Rules of Court, 1hich beca$e effective a little over a
$onth before he filed the otice of Appeal. e 1as thus not a1are that the
nonpa($ent of doc0et fees $i%ht lead to the dis$issal of the case.
On 6+ Ma( )++), the CA issued the assailed Resolution9*:den(in%
petitioners Motion for Reconsideration.
ence, this Petition.
Petitioner alle%es that the CA erred in sustainin% the RCs dis$issal of the
otice of Appeal. Petitioner contends that the CA had e4clusive ;urisdiction to
dis$iss the otice of Appeal at the ti$e of filin%. Alternativel(, petitioner ar%ues
that 1hile the appeal 1as dis$issible for failure to pa( doc0et fees, substantial;ustice de$ands that procedural rules be rela4ed in this case.
he Petition has no $erit.
Statutes and rules re%ulatin% the procedure of courts are considered
applicable to actions pendin% and unresolved at the ti$e of their passa%e.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/154061.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/154061.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/154061.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/154061.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/154061.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/154061.htm#_ftn16 -
7/23/2019 Panay Railways Inc vs Heva Mgt and Devt Corp GR No 154061
6/7
Procedural la1s and rules are retroactive in that sense and to that e4tent. he effect
of procedural statutes and rules on the ri%hts of a liti%ant $a( not preclude their
retroactive application to pendin% actions. his retroactive application does not
violate an( ri%ht of a person adversel( affected. either is it constitutionall(
ob;ectionable. he reason is that, as a %eneral rule, no vested ri%ht $a( attach to orarise fro$ procedural la1s and rules. It has been held that a person has no vested
ri%ht in an( particular re$ed(, and a liti%ant cannot insist on the application to the
trial of his case, 1hether civil or cri$inal, of an( other than the e4istin% rules of
procedure.95:More so 1hen, as in this case, petitioner ad$its that it 1as not able to
pa( the doc0et fees on ti$e. Clearl(, there 1ere no substantive ri%hts to spea0 of
1hen the RC dis$issed the otice of Appeal.
he ar%u$ent that the CA had the e4clusive ;urisdiction to dis$iss the
appeal has no $erit. =hen this Court accordin%l( a$ended Sec. 6 of Rule @
throu%h A.M. o. ++-)-+-SC, the RCs dis$issal of the action $a( be considered
to have had the i$pri$atur of the Court. hus, the CA co$$itted no reversible
error 1hen it sustained the dis$issal of the appeal, ta0in% note of its directive on
the $atter prior to the pro$ul%ation of its 8ecision.
As earl( as 26), inLazaro v. Endencia,9:1e have held that the pa($ent of
the full a$ount of the doc0et fees is an indispensable step for the perfection of an
appeal.he Court ac7uires ;urisdiction over an( case onl( upon the pa($ent of the
prescribed doc0et fees.93:
Moreover, the ri%ht to appeal is not a natural ri%ht and is not part of due
process. It is $erel( a statutor( privile%e, 1hich $a( be e4ercised onl( in
accordance 1ith the la1.92:
=e have repeatedl( stated that the ter$ substantial ;ustice is not a $a%ic
1and that 1ould auto$aticall( co$pel this Court to suspend procedural rules.
Procedural rules are not to be belittled or dis$issed si$pl( because their non-
observance $a( result in pre;udice to a part(s substantive ri%hts. "i0e all other
rules, the( are re7uired to be follo1ed, e4cept onl( for the $ost persuasive of
reasons 1hen the( $a( be rela4ed to relieve liti%ants of an in;ustice not
co$$ensurate 1ith the de%ree of their thou%htlessness in not co$pl(in% 1ith the
procedure prescribed.9)+:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/154061.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/154061.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/154061.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/154061.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/154061.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/154061.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/154061.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/154061.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/154061.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/154061.htm#_ftn21 -
7/23/2019 Panay Railways Inc vs Heva Mgt and Devt Corp GR No 154061
7/7
=e cannot consider counsels failure to fa$iliari>e hi$self 1ith the Revised
Rules of Court as a persuasive reason to rela4 the application of the Rules. It is
1ell-settled that the ne%li%ence of counsel binds the client. his principle is based
on the rule that an( act perfor$ed b( la1(ers 1ithin the scope of their %eneral or
i$plied authorit( is re%arded as an act of the client. Conse7uentl(, the $ista0e orne%li%ence of the counsel of petitioner $a( result in the rendition of an
unfavorable ;ud%$ent a%ainst it.9):
WHEREORE, in vie1 of the fore%oin%, the Petition is DENIEDfor lac0
of $erit.
SO ORDERED.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/154061.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/154061.htm#_ftn22