EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-3911. December 29, 1950.]

REMIGIO MARASIGAN, petitioner, vs. PERFECTO R. PALACIO

and JOSE N. LEUTERIO, Judges of the Court of First Instance
of Camarines Sur, and FAUSTO NORTE, respondents.

Jose R. Luntok, for petitioner.

Victoriano Yamzon, for respondent Judge Leuterio and Fausto Norte.

SYLLABUS

1. APPEAL; PAYMENT BY APPELLANT OF DOCKET FEE REQUIRED BY

CLERK OF COURT; DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO PAY DOCKET FEE IN FULL
WITHIN REGLEMENTARY PERIOD; PRESUMPTION THAT PUBLIC OFFICER
KNOWS AND PERFORMS HIS DUTIES. — Where an appellant was from the
beginning ready and willing to pay into court the correct amount of
docketing fee and the correct amount was not paid because paid of error of
the clerk of the justice of the peace court, who believing P8 to be the correct
fee, required petitioner to pay that amount only, it would be unjust to
dismiss the appeal, just for that mistake of the government clerk. ( See also
Segovia vs. Barrios et al., 42 Off. Gaz., 1233.)

DECISION

REYES, J : p

This is a petition for mandamus and certiorari.

Petitioner was defendant in a case of forcible entry and detainer filed in
the justice of the peace court of Libmanan, Camarines Sur by Fausto Norte,
one of the herein respondents. Having been sentenced in that court to
vacate the land in litigation and to pay damages and costs, defendant in due
time took steps to perfect an appeal to the Court of First Instance of the
province by filing his notice of appeal, an appeal bond and a supersedeas
bond and at the same time depositing with the justice of the peace court the
sum of P8 to cover the docketing fee in the Court of First Instance for which
he was issued the corresponding receipt. Thereafter the justice of the peace
gave course to the appeal by certifying the record to the Court of First
Instance. Some three months thereafter, plaintiff filed a motion in the Court
of First Instance asking that the appeal be declared abandoned on the
ground that defendant had not paid within the 15-day period fixed by the
Rules the full amount of the docketing fee, which in accordance with Rule
130, section 5, paragraph 12, should be P10 instead of P8, the amount
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2024 cdasiaonline.com
 actually paid by defendant. Defendant objected to the motion, explaining
under oath that if he had paid only P8 for the docketing fee it was because
that was the amount he was required to pay by the clerk of the justice of the
peace; that being ignorant, he relied on the word of said clerk; and that if the
said amount was not enough, he was willing to pay what was lacking.
Overruling the objection, the Court of First Instance, in its order dated April
29, 1950, granted the motion and declared the appeal abandoned,
whereupon defendant gave notice of his intention to appeal to the Supreme
Court and perfected the corresponding record on appeal. But the Court of
First Instance disapproved the said record on appeal on the ground that the
order declaring the appeal abandoned was not appealable.
The prayer for mandamus to compel approval of the record on appeal
is meritorious. But the granting of it would not result in speedy justice, for
once the record is elevated here briefs will have to be filed and the question
of whether or not the appeal from the justice of the peace court was properly
declared abandoned under the circumstances above set forth, which is
already discussed in this instance, will again be argued. Far better it would
be, we think to have that question decided now by entertaining petitioner's
alternative prayer for a writ of certiorari. This we now propose to do in line
with counsel for respondent's own suggestion.
In principle we find the present case identical with that of Segoviavs.
Barrios et al., 42 O. G., 1233; 75 Phil., 764. In that case the court of first
instance dismissed an appeal from the municipal court in a case of
desahucio on the ground that the appellant had paid only P8 as docketing
fee, and appellant petitioned for a writ of certiorari to have the order of
dismissal annulled. In annulling the order this Court said:
"We find the petition meritorious. It was a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to an excess of jurisdiction on the part of Judges
Rillorasa and Barrios to set aside the order of Judge Davila, which
appeared to be in harmony with law and equity. The very same day
he was notified of the decisions the petitioner filed notice of appeal
and five days thereafter paid the docket fee required by the clerk of
the appellate court. It appears to have been the practice of the said
clerk to collect only the sum of P8 as fee for docketing an appeal from
the municipal or justice of the peace court in a desahucio case,
basing his action on item (1) of section 5, Rule 130 of the Rules of
Court, according to which the clerks of the Courts of First Instance
shall collect a fee of P8 'for filing an action or proceeding and for all
services in the same, if the sum claimed, exclusive of interest and
damages, or the value of the property in litigation, or the value of the
estate, is less than P200.' On the other hand the respondents contend
that the provision of said section 5 of Rule 130 that is applicable to a
desahucio case is item (11), which says: 'When the case does not
concern property (naturalization, adoption, divorce, etc.) . . . P16.'
There is plenty of room for a difference of opinion as to which of these
two items, if at all, is applicable; as much so that the members of this
Court are in disagreement on this point and deem it necessary to
promulgate hereafter amendatory rule to do away with the
controversy.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2024 cdasiaonline.com
 "The fact remains that the petitioner, as appellant from the
judgment of the Municipal Court of Iloilo, duly paid the docket fee to
the clerk of Court of First Instance in the amount required by the
latter in accordance with his practice based on his bona fide
understanding of the statute on the subject; and when the judge
required the appellant to pay P8 more he did so without delay under
the circumstances, to dismiss his appeal would be whimsical, unjust,
and unwarranted. Every citizen has the right to assume and trust that
a public officer charged by law with certain duties knows his duties
and performs them in accordance with the law. To penalize such
citizen for relying upon said officer in all good faith is repugnant to
justice."
It is contended, however, that after the clarification made in the above
decision as to the amount of the docketing fee for an appeal to the court of
first instance in a desahucio case, there is no longer any excuse for making
the same mistake as that committed in that case, and that in any event
ignorance of the law does not excuse any one from complying with it. But it
appears that herein petitioner was from the beginning ready and willing to
pay into court the correct amount of the docketing fee and that if the correct
amount was not paid it was because of the error of the clerk of the justice of
the peace court, who, believing P8 to be the correct fee, required petitioner
to pay that amount only. In the circumstances and there being no question
that petitioner has acted in good faith, it would be unjust to penalize him for
the mistake of the Government clerk. As was said in the Segovia case, supra,
"Every citizen has the right to assume and trust that the public officer
charged by law with certain duties know his duties and performs them in
accordance with the law. To penalize such citizen for relying upon said
officer in all good faith is repugnant to justice."
It is true that in the earlier case of Lazaro vs. Endencia, 57 Phil. 552,
this Court has laid down a more strict rule in regard to this same matter. But
that rule should not be followed blindly to the extent of causing a manifest
injustice.
In view of the foregoing, the petition for certiorari is granted, and the
order declaring petitioner's appeal from the justice of the peace court
abandoned is set aside. The said appeal should, therefore, be docketed and
allowed to take its course upon payment by the petitioner of the amount
necessary to complete the docketing fee for the appeal. With costs. So
ordered.
Moran, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason and Montemayor, JJ.,
concur.
Moran, C.J., Mr. Justice Paras and Mr. Justice Feria voted to grant the
writ.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2024 cdasiaonline.com