TENTH DIVISION
[CA-G.R. SP No. 44218. March 31, 1998.]
ROGITO MARCIAL, petitioner, vs. HON. VIRGIL G. ALBERTO, Provincial Adjudicator, Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, Branch 1, Camarines Sur, and DR. BENIGNO B. DIEGO, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
ABAD SANTOS, JR., J p:
This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition seeking to annul the Resolution of the respondent DARAB Provincial Adjudicator dated December 2, 1996, denying due course petitioner's Notice of Appeal from the Decision of said Adjudicator in PARAB CASE NO. R-05CS-0001-96, entitled: "DR. BENITO DIEGO versus ROGITO MARCIAL," and the subsequent Resolution dated February 4, 1997 denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.
The facts of this case are simple.
On December 28, 1995, private respondent filed a complaint for ejectment and other reliefs against petitioner with the Office of the Provincial Adjudicator, Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, Camarines Sur, Branch 1, San Jose, Pili, Camarines Sur, docketed as PARAB CASE NO. R-05CS-001-9.
After due hearing, respondent Provincial Adjudicator rendered his Decision on October 5, 1996, ordering the eviction of petitioner from the subject farm holdings and to restore possession thereof to private respondent and/or his heirs.
Petitioner received a copy of the aforesaid said Decision on OCTOBER 23, 1996, and on the same day (October 23, 1996), petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal with the respondent Provincial Adjudicator.
On October 25, 1996, the Provincial Adjudicator issued an Order directing:
"1. Appellant(s), to remit the appeal fee of FIVE HUNDRED (P500.00) PESOS to the DAR Cashier's Office within ten (10) days from receipt hereof; but within the reglementary period for appeal." 1
On November 11, 1996, private respondent filed a Motion to Set Aside Order of October 25, 1996 and to Dismiss Appeal, on the ground that petitioner failed to pay the appeal fee of P500.00 within the reglementary period for appeal.
Petitioner paid said appeal fee on November 14, 1996.
Acting on the motion to dismiss appeal filed by private respondent, the respondent Provincial Adjudicator issued the first assailed Resolution on December 2, 1996, finding that:
"The DARAB New Rules of Procedure provides strict compliance with the fifteen-day reglementary period to perfect an appeal, i.e., by filing a notice of appeal and payment of the appeal fee of P500.00 within the said period. Non-compliance thereof shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of appeal.
As shown in the records, the appeal fee was clearly paid out of time, it was made on November 14, 1996, exactly seven (7) days beyond the required period of fifteen (15) days from receipt of the Decision-October 23, 1996." 2
and thus denied petitioner's Notice of Appeal. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was equally denied.
Hence, this recourse by Petitioner positing:
"That Public Respondent Provincial Adjudicator committed grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack of jurisdiction in dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and in arbitrarily denying the motion for reconsideration."
Procedurally and substantively, the petition lacks merit.
On the procedural aspect, the filing of this petition with this Court is violative of the DARAB New Rules of Procedure. 3
Section 5, Rule II of the said DARAB New Rules Procedure provides:
"SECTION 5. Appellate Jurisdiction. — The Board shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review, reverse, modify, alter or affirm resolutions, orders and decisions, of its Adjudicators. No order of the Adjudicators on any issue, question, matter or incident raised before them shall be elevated to the Board until the hearing shall have been terminated and the case decided on the merits."
Conformably to the aforequoted rule, it is the DARAB Board which shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review, reverse, modify, alter or affirm resolutions, orders and decisions of its Adjudicators. It is the decision, resolution or order of the DARAB Board that this Court shall have appellate jurisdiction in accordance with Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
But even if We brush aside the above procedural infirmity, the substantive merits of the petition has nothing to commend with.
Petitioner contends that respondent Provincial Adjudicator acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in denying due course to his Notice of Appeal on the ground that petitioner failed to pay the appeal fee within the reglementary period.
The denial of petitioner's Notice of Appeal is sanctioned by the DARAB New Rules of Procedure. Section 5, Rule XIII thereof mandates:
"SECTION 5. Requisites and perfection of the Appeal. — . . .
b) An appeal fee of Five Hundred Pesos (P500.00) shall be paid by the appellant within the reglementary period to the DAR Cashier where the Office of the Adjudicator is situated. A pauper litigant shall, however, be exempt from the payment of the appeal fee.
Non-compliance with above-mentioned requisites shall be a ground for the dismissal of the appeal." 4
Petitioner does not claim, nor pretend to be a pauper litigant who may be exempt from the payment of the required appeal fee. Hence, he is bound to comply with the payment of the appeal fee within the reglementary period.
There is no dispute that petitioner received the Decision of respondent Provincial Adjudicator dated October 5, 1996 on October 23, 1996, and on the same day (October 23, 1996), he filed a Notice of Appeal.
Considering that petitioner received the Decision of respondent Provincial Adjudicator on October 23, 1996, he had fifteen (15) days from October 23, 1996 or until November 7, 1996, within which to pay the required appeal fee of P500.00. However, while he timely filed the Notice of Appeal on October 23, 1996, petitioner, paid the appeal fee of P500.00 only on November 14, 1996, or seven (7) days late.
Petitioner seeks refuge of the Order dated October 25, 1996 of the Provincial Adjudicator, directing him to pay the appeal fee within ten (10) days from receipt thereof. He avers that he received said Order on November 5, 1996 and paid the appeal fee on November 14, 1996 or within the period of ten (10) days prescribed in the October 25, 1996 Order.
Petitioner cannot invoke to his aid said Order of the Provincial Adjudicator dated October 25, 1996. Said Order directing petitioner to pay within ten (10) days from receipt thereof, was clearly qualified that the appeal fee shall still be paid within reglementary period.
The payment of the full amount of the docket fee is an indispensable step for the perfection of an appeal. 5 The requirement of an appeal fee is by no means a mere technicality of law or procedure. It is an essential requirement without which the decision appealed from would become final and executory as if no appeal was filed at all. The right to appeal is merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner prescribed by, and in accordance with, the provision of the law. 6
In fine, We cannot hold respondent Provincial Adjudicator as having acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when he strictly but correctly applied the rules.
WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Reyes and Aquino, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1. p. 30, Rollo.
2. "Annex "A", Petition; p. 11, Rollo.
3. Effective June 22, 1994.
4. Emphasis supplied.
5. See Dorego v. Perez, 22 SCRA 8; Bello vs. Fernandez, 4 SCRA 135.
6. Rodillas vs. Commission on Elections, 245 SCRA 702.