Short answer. Failing to comply with any of the requirements on docket fees, the costs deposit, proof of service, or the required contents and attachments of the petition is by itself sufficient ground for the Court of Appeals to dismiss the petition, without needing any other reason.

What the law says

The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.

Rule 43, Section 7 — Effect of failure to comply with requirements. Read the full provision →

A single lapse can be enough

Rule 43 does not treat its filing requirements as mere suggestions. Section 7 states plainly that the failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof. One missing requirement, not a pattern of failures, is enough on its own to expose the petition to dismissal. This strict, no-margin-for-error approach reflects how central these formal requirements are treated as being to giving the Court of Appeals a workable petition.

Which requirements this reaches

The sanction covers the full range of what Sections 5 and 6 demand: paying the docketing fees, depositing costs, proving service on the adverse party and the agency, and including everything the petition is supposed to contain — the certified copy of the ruling, the concise statement of facts and issues, and the forum shopping certification among them. A petitioner overlooking any single one of these items exposes the whole petition to the same dismissal risk. A petitioner would do well to run through each of these items methodically before submission rather than relying on memory alone.

Why this makes preparation essential

Because dismissal on this ground does not require the Court of Appeals to first find the appeal meritless, a technically deficient petition can be thrown out even if the underlying case is strong. Treating the checklist in Sections 5 and 6 as mandatory, not optional, before filing is the only reliable way to avoid this outcome, since the court is not obligated to give a petitioner a second chance to fix the deficiency. Careful pre-filing review of the petition against the full checklist is therefore far cheaper, in time and money, than litigating a dismissal after the fact.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.