Spouses Oscar and Haydee Badillo vs Judge Arturo Tayag et al

written by Howard

G.R. No. 143976 – G.R. No. 145846 – 448 Phil. 606 – 400 SCRA 494 – Remedial Law – Civil Procedure – Appeals

Appeal from MTC to RTC – Appeal Fees – Supersedeas Bond – Exemption – Always Solvent Doctrine

Political Law – Governmental Functions – Public Housing

Spouses Oscar and Haydee Badillo sued the National Housing Authority (NHA) and the Triad Construction and Development Corporation. The Badillos wanted to eject Triad Construction from their land. Triad Construction was contracted by the NHA in the development of a resettlement area for public housing. The Badillos claimed that part of the land being developed by Triad Construction was privately owned by the Badillos.

The Municipal Trial Court of San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan, ruled in favor of spouses Badillo. The NHA appealed the decision to the Regional Trial Court. However, NHA did not pay on time the required appellate docket fees and the supersedeas bond. Hence, the Badillos moved for the execution of the MTC decision.

The NHA then filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, and injunction against the MTC as the latter issued a writ of execution against NHA. This petition was raffled to RTC Bulacan Branch 79, presided by Judge Arturo Tayag, which granted the petition and set aside the writ of execution issued by the MTC. The spouses Badillo are now questioning the RTC resolution on the petition.

ISSUES

1. Whether or not NHA, a government owned and controlled corporation (GOCC), is required to pay appeal fees.

2. Whether or not NHA, a GOCC, is required to pay supersedeas bond.

HELD:

1. No. It is true that Section 21, Rule 141, of the Rules of Court does not exempt GOCCs from paying appellate docket fees. In fact, only the Republic of the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities, are exempt from paying the legal fees under the Rules. However, it has already been ruled in Public Estates Authority v. Yujuico, that a government-owned and controlled corporation is exempt from paying docket fees whenever it files a suit in relation to its governmental functions. In this case, NHA was sued in relation to its performance of its mandate to provide public housing which is a governmental function. When it lost said suit, it has to sue back by filing an appeal. As a GOCC performing governmental functions, the non-payment of an appellate docket fee is not fatal to its case. The NHA is exempt from paying appellate docket fees when it sues or is sued in relation to its governmental function of providing mass housing.

2. No. As a GOCC, the NHA is presumed to be always solvent. The rationale for requiring the losing party to file a supersedeas bond on appeal is to assure the winning party the payment of damages in case the appeal is found to be frivolous. Such form of assurance is no longer required as against the State. When the State litigates, it is not required to put up a bond for damages or even an appeal bond — either directly or indirectly through its authorized officers — because it is presumed to be always solvent. The State is capable of paying its obligation.

Side Issue

Is the non-payment of appeal fee an absolute ground to dismiss an appeal?

It depends. If the appeal is from the MTC to the RTC, it is not a ground. In appeals from the MTC to the RTC, failure to pay the appellate docket fee within the fifteen-day reglementary period bestows on the appellate court a directory, not a mandatory, power to dismiss an appeal. This is the import of Section 4, Rule 40, and Section 9, Rule 41, of the Rules of Court. Said rules provide that an appeal from the MTC to the RTC is already perfected by the mere filing of a notice of appeal on time.

However, if the appeal is from the RTC to the CA or from the CA to the SC, then the non-payment of appellate fees shall be fatal to the appeal. The payment of appeal fees in these cases is mandatory.

Read full text.