Republic of the Philippines To reverse the imposed forced leave, Cobarrubias sought recourse from the

SUPREME COURT CBA’s grievance machinery. Despite the conferences held, the parties still
Manila failed to settle their dispute, prompting Cobarrubias to file a case for illegal
forced leave or illegal suspension with the National Conciliation and
THIRD DIVISION Mediation Board of the Department of Labor and Employment, Cordillera
Administrative Region, Baguio City. When circulation and mediation again
G.R. No. 187104 August 3, 2010 failed, the parties submitted the issues between them for voluntary arbitration
before Voluntary Arbitrator (VA) Daniel T. Fariñas.
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY, INC., Petitioner,
Cobarrubias argued that the CA already resolved the forced leave issue in a
vs.
EVANGELINE C. COBARRUBIAS, Respondent. prior case between the parties, CA-G.R. SP No. 90596,8 ruling that the
forced leave for teachers who fail their evaluation for three (3) times within a
five-year period should be coterminous with the CBA in force during the
DECISION same five-year period.9

BRION, J.: SLU, for its part, countered that the CA decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 90596
cannot be considered in deciding the present case since it is presently on
We resolve the present petition for review on certiorari1 filed by petitioner appeal with this Court (G.R. No. 176717)10 and, thus, is not yet final. It
Saint Louis University, Inc. (SLU), to challenge the decision 2 and the argued that the forced leave provision applies irrespective of which CBA is
resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 101708.4 applicable, provided the employee fails her evaluation three (3) times in five
(5) years.11
The Factual Background
The Voluntary Arbitrator Decision
The facts of the case, gathered from the records, are briefly summarized
below. On October 26, 2007, VA Daniel T. Fariñas dismissed the case.12 He found
that the CA decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 90596 is not yet final because of the
Respondent Evangeline C. Cobarrubias is an associate professor of the pending appeal with this Court. He noted that the CBA clearly authorized
petitioner’s College of Human Sciences. She is an active member of the SLU to place its teaching employees on forced leave when they fail in the
Union of Faculty and Employees of Saint Louis University (UFESLU). evaluation for three (3) years within a five-year period, without a distinction
on whether the three years fall within one or two CBA periods. Cobarrubias
The 2001-20065 and 2006-20116 Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) received the VA’s decision on November 20, 2007.13
between SLU and UFESLU contain the following common provision on
forced leave: On December 5, 2007, Cobarrubias filed with the CA a petition for review
under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, but failed to pay the required filing fees
Section 7.7. For teaching employees in college who fail the yearly evaluation, and to attach to the petition copies of the material portions of the record.14
the following provisions shall apply:
Thus, on January 14, 2008, the CA dismissed the petition outright for
(a) Teaching employees who are retained for three (3) cumulative years in Cobarrubias’ procedural lapses.15 Cobarrubias received the CA resolution,
five (5) years shall be on forced leave for one (1) regular semester during dismissing her petition, on January 31, 2008.16
which period all benefits due them shall be suspended.7
On February 15, 2008, Cobarrubias filed her motion for reconsideration,
SLU placed Cobarrubias on forced leave for the first semester of School arguing that the ground cited is technical. She, nonetheless, attached to her
Year (SY) 2007-2008 when she failed the evaluation for SY 2002-2003, SY motion copies of the material portions of the record and the postal money
2005-2006, and SY 2006-2007, with the rating of 85, 77, and 72.9 points, orders for ₱4,230.00. She maintained that the ends of justice and fair play
respectively, below the required rating of 87 points. are better served if the case is decided on its merits.17
On July 30, 2008, the CA reinstated the petition. It found that Cobarrubias The Court’s Ruling
substantially complied with the rules by paying the appeal fee in full and
attaching the proper documents in her motion for reconsideration.18 We find the petition meritorious.

SLU insisted that the VA decision had already attained finality for Payment of Appellate Court Docket Fees
Cobarrubias’ failure to pay the docket fees on time.
Appeal is not a natural right but a mere statutory privilege, thus, appeal must
The CA Decision be made strictly in accordance with the provision set by law.25 Rule 43 of the
Rules of Court provides that appeals from the judgment of the VA shall be
The CA brushed aside SLU’s insistence on the finality of the VA decision and taken to the CA, by filing a petition for review within fifteen (15) days from the
annulled it, declaring that the "three (3) cumulative years in five (5) years" receipt of the notice of judgment.26 Furthermore, upon the filing of the
phrase in Section 7.7(a) of the 2006-2011 CBA means within the five-year petition, the petitioner shall pay to the CA clerk of court the docketing and
effectivity of the CBA. Thus, the CA ordered SLU to pay all the benefits due other lawful fees;27 non-compliance with the procedural requirements shall be
Cobarrubias for the first semester of SY 2007-2008, when she was placed on a sufficient ground for the petition’s dismissal.28 Thus, payment in full of
forced leave.19 docket fees within the prescribed period is not only mandatory, but also
jurisdictional.29 It is an essential requirement, without which, the decision
When the CA denied20 the motion for reconsideration that followed,21 SLU appealed from would become final and executory as if no appeal has been
filed the present petition for review on certiorari.22 filed.30

The Petition As early as the 1932 case of Lazaro v. Endencia and Andres,31 we stressed
that the payment of the full amount of the docket fee is an indispensable step
SLU argues that the CA should not have reinstated the appeal since for the perfection of an appeal. In Lee v. Republic,32 we decided that even
Cobarrubias failed to pay the docket fees within the prescribed period, and though half of the appellate court docket fee was deposited, no appeal was
deemed perfected where the other half was tendered after the period within
rendered the VA decision final and executory. Even if Cobarrubias’
which payment should have been made. In Aranas v. Endona, 33 we
procedural lapse is disregarded, SLU submits that Section 7.7(a) of the
reiterated that the appeal is not perfected if only a part of the docket fee is
2006-2011 CBA should apply irrespective of the five-year effectivity of each
deposited within the reglementary period and the remainder is tendered after
CBA.23
the expiration of the period.
The Case for Cobarrubias
The rulings in these cases have been consistently reiterated in subsequent
cases: Guevarra v. Court of Appeals,34 Pedrosa v. Spouses Hill,35 Gegare v.
Cobarrubias insists that the CA settled the appeal fee issue, in its July 30, Court of Appeals,36 Lazaro v. Court of Appeals,37 Sps. Manalili v. Sps. de
2008 resolution, when it found that she had substantially complied with the Leon,38 La Salette College v. Pilotin,39 Saint Louis University v. Spouses
rules by subsequently paying the docket fees in full. She submits that the Cordero,40 M.A. Santander Construction, Inc. v. Villanueva,41 Far Corporation
CA’s interpretation of Section 7.7(a) of the 2006-2011 CBA is more in accord v. Magdaluyo,42 Meatmasters Int’l. Corp. v. Lelis Integrated Dev’t.
with law and jurisprudence.24 Corp.,43 Tamayo v. Tamayo, Jr.,44 Enriquez v. Enriquez,45 KLT Fruits, Inc. v.
WSR Fruits, Inc.,46 Tan v. Link,47 Ilusorio v. Ilusorio-Yap,48 and most recently
The Issues in Tabigue v. International Copra Export Corporation (INTERCO),49 and
continues to be the controlling doctrine.
The core issues boil down to whether the CA erred in reinstating
Cobarrubias’ petition despite her failure to pay the appeal fee within the In the present case, Cobarrubias filed her petition for review on December 5,
reglementary period, and in reversing the VA decision. To state the obvious, 2007, fifteen (15) days from receipt of the VA decision on November 20,
the appeal fee is a threshold issue that renders all other issues unnecessary 2007, but paid her docket fees in full only after seventy-two (72) days, when
if SLU’s position on this issue is correct. she filed her motion for reconsideration on February 15, 2008 and attached
the postal money orders for ₱4,230.00. Undeniably, the docket fees were
paid late, and without payment of the full docket fees, Cobarrubias’ appeal WHEREFORE, the present petition is GRANTED. The assailed decision and
was not perfected within the reglementary period. resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 101708 are
hereby DECLARED VOID and are consequently SET ASIDE. The decision
Exceptions to the Rule on Payment of Appellate Court Docket Fees not of the voluntary arbitrator, that the voided Court of Appeals decision and
applicable resolution nullified, stands. No pronouncement as to costs.

Procedural rules do not exist for the convenience of the litigants; the rules SO ORDERED.
were established primarily to provide order to and enhance the efficiency of
our judicial system.50 While procedural rules are liberally construed, the ARTURO D. BRION
provisions on reglementary periods are strictly applied, indispensable as they
are to the prevention of needless delays, and are necessary to the orderly
and speedy discharge of judicial business.51

Viewed in this light, procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed

simply because their non-observance may have prejudiced a party's
substantive rights; like all rules, they are required to be followed. However,
there are recognized exceptions to their strict observance, such as: (1) most
persuasive and weighty reasons; (2) to relieve a litigant from an injustice not
commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure; (3)
good faith of the defaulting party by immediately paying within a reasonable
time from the time of the default; (4) the existence of special or compelling
circumstances; (5) the merits of the case; (6) a cause not entirely attributable
to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules;
(7) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and
dilatory; (8) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby; (9) fraud,
accident, mistake or excusable negligence without the appellant's fault; (10)
peculiar, legal and equitable circumstances attendant to each case; (11) in
the name of substantial justice and fair play; (12) importance of the issues
involved; and (13) exercise of sound discretion by the judge, guided by all the
attendant circumstances.52 Thus, there should be an effort, on the part of the
party invoking liberality, to advance a reasonable or meritorious explanation
for his/her failure to comply with the rules.1avvphi1

In Cobarrubias' case, no such explanation has been advanced. Other

than insisting that the ends of justice and fair play are better served if the
case is decided on its merits, Cobarrubias offered no excuse for her failure to
pay the docket fees in full when she filed her petition for review. To us,
Cobarrubias’ omission is fatal to her cause.

We, thus, find that the CA erred in reinstating Cobarrubias’ petition for review
despite the nonpayment of the requisite docket fees within the reglementary
period. The VA decision had lapsed to finality when the docket fees were
paid; hence, the CA had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal except to
order its dismissal.