G.R. No.

116121         July 18, 2011

THE HEIRS OF THE LATE RUBEN REINOSO, SR., represented by Ruben Reinoso
Jr., Petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, PONCIANO TAPALES, JOSE GUBALLA,
and FILWRITERS GUARANTY ASSURANCE CORPORATION,** Respondent.

Facts: The complaint for damages filed by the Heirs of the deceased arose from the collision of a
passenger jeepney and a truck along E. Rodriguez Avenue, Quezon City. As a result, a passenger
of the jeepney, Ruben Reinoso, Sr. (Reinoso), was killed. The passenger jeepney was owned by
Ponciano Tapales (Tapales) and driven by Alejandro Santos (Santos), while the truck was owned
by Jose Guballa (Guballa) and driven by Mariano Geronimo (Geronimo).

In 1988, the RTC rendered a decision in favor of the petitioners and against Guballa and
awarded the respective claims of the parties.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA), set aside and reversed the RTC decision and
dismissed the complaint on the ground of non-payment of docket fees pursuant to the doctrine
laid down in Manchester v. CA. In addition, the CA ruled that since prescription had set in,
petitioners could no longer pay the required docket fees.

The petitioners argue that the ruling in Manchester should not have been applied
retroactively in this case, since it was filed prior to the promulgation of the Manchester decision
in 1987. They plead that though this Court stated that failure to state the correct amount of
damages would lead to the dismissal of the complaint, said doctrine should be applied
prospectively.

They claim that the jurisdiction of the trial court remains even if there was failure to pay
the correct filing fee as long as the correct amount would be paid subsequently.

Issue: Whether or not the dismissal of the complaint by the CA is proper.

Held: No.
Notwithstanding the mandatory nature of the requirement of payment of appellate docket
fees, it is also recognized 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 this case, it cannot be denied that the case was litigated before the RTC and said trial
court had already rendered a decision. While it was at that level, the matter of non-payment of
docket fees was never an issue. It was only the CA which motu propio dismissed the case for
said reason.
 Considering the foregoing, there is a need to suspend the strict application of the rules so
that the petitioners would be able to fully and finally prosecute their claim on the merits at the
appellate level rather than fail to secure justice on a technicality, for, indeed, the general
objective of procedure is to facilitate the application of justice to the rival claims of contending
parties, bearing always in mind that procedure is not to hinder but to promote the administration
of justice.