Elections Cases

7/27/2019 Elections Cases

1/23

ELECTION additional cases| 1

G.R. No. 166046 March 23, 2006

MARGARITO C. SULIGUIN, Petitioner, vs.THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,

THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF NAGCARLAN, LAGUNA, and

ECELSON C. SUMAGUE, Respondents.// CALLEJO, SR., J.:

This is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court

seeking to reverse the Resolution1of the Commission on Elections (Comelec)

En Banc in SPC No. 04-209 dated November 18, 2004 which denied

petitioner Margarito Suliguins motion for reconsideration of the July 21,

2004 Resolution2

of the Comelecs First Division. The Comelec nullified hisproclamation as the 8th Sangguniang Bayan member of Nagcarlan, Laguna.

The antecedents are as follows:

Petitioner Margarito Suliguin was one of the candidates for the Sangguniang

Bayan of Nagcarlan, Laguna during the May 10, 2004 elections. At around

6:00 p.m. on said date, respondent Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBOC)

convened to canvass the votes for all the candidates. Petitioner received

6,605 votes while respondent Ecelson Sumague received 6,647 votes.

However, in the Statement of Votes (SOV) covering Precincts 1A to 19A,

Sumague appears to have received only 644 votes when, in fact, he received

844 votes. The MBOC failed to notice the discrepancy and proclaimed the

winning candidates at around 7:00 p.m. of May 13, 2004. Petitioner was

proclaimed as the 8th Sangguniang Bayan member of Nagcarlan, Laguna,garnering a total of 6,605 votes.

3

Thereafter, Sumague requested for a recomputation of the votes received

by him and Suliguin in a Letter4dated May 15, 2004, it appearing that there

was a mistake in adding the figures in the Certificate of Canvass of votes. He

pointed out that he officially garnered 6,647 votes, as against petitioners

6,605 votes.

The MBOC summoned petitioner and respondent Sumague to a conference.

Upon review, the MBOC discovered that it had, indeed, failed to credit

respondent Sumague his 200 votes from Precincts 1A to 19A, and that with

his 6,647 votes, he should have been proclaimed as the 8th Sangguniang

Bayan member of Nagcarlan, Laguna, instead of petitioner Suliguin.

On May 26, 2004, the MBOC filed before the Comelec a "Petition to Correct

Entries Made in the Statement of Votes" for Councilor. The error was

attributed to extreme physical and mental fatigue which the members of the

board experienced during the election and the canvassing of votes.

In the meantime, on June 9, 2004, petitioner took his oath of office before

Judge Renato B. Bercades.5

On July 21, 2004, the Comelec (First Division) issued a Resolution6granting

the petition of the MBOC. The Commission nullified the proclamation of

petitioner Suliguin as the 8th Sangguniang Bayan member of Nagcarlan,

Laguna during the May 10, 2004 National and Local Elections "for being

based on an erroneous computation of votes." It then ordered the MBOC of

Nagcarlan, Laguna to reconvene and effect the necessary corrections in theSOV, and forthwith proclaim Sumague as the 8th duly elected Sangguniang

Bayan member of Nagcarlan, Laguna.7

Petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the resolution but the Comelec

En Banc denied the motion on November 18, 2004; hence, this petition.

Petitioner alleges that respondent Commission committed grave abuse of

discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in ruling against him. In

support of his petition, he alleges that:

4.1 THE "PETITION TO CORRECT ENTRIES MADE IN THE STATEMENT OF

VOTES FOR COUNCILOR, NAGCARLAN, LAGUNA" WAS UNDISPUTEDLY FILED

OUT OF TIME, and

4.2 "THE PETITION TO CORRECT ENTRIES MADE IN THE STATEMENT OF

VOTES FOR COUNCILOR, NAGCARLAN, LAGUNA" WAS FILED BY THE

MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS IN DEFIANCE OF EXISTING COMELEC

RULES AND REGULATIONS AND WAS OBVIOUSLY BIAS IN FAVOR OF PRIVATE

RESPONDENT CANDICATE ECELSON C. SUMAGUE.8

Petitioner argues that pursuant to Sections 35,9

36(c) and (f)10

of ComelecResolution No. 6669 (General Instructions for Municipal/City/Provincial and

District Boards of Canvassers in Connection with the May 10, 2004

Elections), the MBOC should not have entertained the letter-request of

respondent Sumague as it was filed only on May 17, 2004, or four (4) days

after the canvassing of votes was terminated and after he (petitioner) was

proclaimed winner as the 8th Sangguniang Bayan member of Nagcarlan,

Laguna. Furthermore, respondent Sumague never entered any objection

during the proceedings of the canvassing of votes. The MBOC itself filed the

"Petition to Correct Entries Made in the Statement of Votes" before the

Comelec only on May 26, 2004, 13 days after the canvassing of votes was

terminated. Petitioner maintains that the Comelec should have denied the

petition, since according to the Revised Comelec Rules, it should have been

filed not later than five (5) days following the date of the proclamation.

Petitioner likewise questions the personality of the MBOC itself to file the

petition before the Comelec. He further argues that upon the proclamation

of the winning candidates in the election, the MBOC adjourns sine die and

becomes functus officio.

The issue is whether or not respondent Comelec erred in granting the

petition of the MBOC to nullify petitioners proclamation as the 8th member

of the Sangguniang Bayan in Nagcarlan, Laguna.

The petition is bereft of merit.

In an election case, the Comelec is mandated to ascertain by all means

within its command who the real candidate elected by the electorate is. The

Court frowns upon any interpretation of the law or the rules that wouldhinder in any way not only the free and intelligent casting of the votes in an

election but also the correct ascertainment of the results.11

In the case at

bar, the simple mathematical procedure of adding the total number of votes

garnered by respondent Sumague as appearing in the Statement of Votes

submitted to the Comelec would readily reveal the result that he has forty-

two (42) votes more than petitioner. Such result would, in effect, dislodge

petitioner from said post, and entitle respondent Sumague to occupy the

eighth and last seat of the Sangguniang Bayan of Nagcarlan, Laguna.

Petitioner himself never disputed the discrepancy in the total number of

votes garnered by respondent Sumague, and instead questioned the

personality of the MBOC to file the petition and insisted that such petition

was not filed on time.

Sections 312

and 413

of Rule 1 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure explicitly

provide that such rules may be "liberally construed" in the interest of justice

Indeed, the Comelec has the discretion to liberally construe its rules and, at

the same time, suspend the rules or any portion thereof in the interest of

justice.14

Disputes in the outcome of elections involve public interest; as

such, technicalities and procedural barriers should not be allowed to stand if

they constitute an obstacle to the determination of the true will of the

electorate in the choice of their elective officials. Laws governing such

disputes must be liberally construed to the end that the will of the people in

the choice of public officials may not be defeated by mere technical

objections.15
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt1


2/23


3/23


defeated by mere technical objections (Gardiner v. Romulo, 26 Phil. 521;

Galang v. Miranda, 35 Phil. 269; Jalandoni v. Sarcon, G.R. No. L-6496,

January 27, 1962; Macasunding v. Macalaang, G.R. No. L-22779, March 31,

1965; Cauton v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. L-25467, April 27, 1967).

In an election case, the court has an imperative duty to ascertain by all

means within its command who is the real candidate elected by the

electorate. (Ibasco v. Ilao, G.R. No. L-17512, December 29, 1960). x x x

(Juliano vs. Court of Appeals, supra, pp. 818-819). ( Italics ours)

In the later case of Rodriguez v. Commission on Elections (119 SCRA 465),

this doctrine was reiterated and the Court went on to state that:

Since the early case of Gardiner v. Romulo (26 Phil. 521), this Court has

made it clear that it frowns upon any interpretation of the law or the rules

that would hinder in any way not only the free and intelligent casting of the

votes in an election but also the correct ascertainment of the results. This

bent or disposition continues to the present. (Id., at p. 474).

The same principle still holds true today. Technicalities of the legal rules

enunciated in the election laws should not frustrate the determination of

the popular will.

Undoubtedly therefore, the only issue that remains unresolved is the

allowance of the correction of what are purely mathematical and/or

mechanical errors in the addition of the votes received by both candidates.It does not involve the opening of ballot boxes; neither does it involve the

examination and/or appreciation of ballots. The correction sought by private

respondent and respondent MBCs of Tayug and San Manuel is correction of

manifest mistakes in mathematical addition. Certainly, this only calls for a

mere clerical act of reflecting the true and correct votes received by the

candidates by the MBCs involved. In this case, the manifest errors sought to

be corrected involve the proper and diligent addition of the votes in the

municipalities of Tayug and San Manuel, Pangasinan.23

The Court made a similar pronouncement in Tatlonghari v. Commission on

Elections,24

to wit:

The argument is devoid of merit. For one thing, records indicate that

respondents assumption of office was effected by a clerical error or simplemathematical mistake in the addition of votes and not through the

legitimate will of the electorate. Thus, respondents proclamationwas

flawed right from the very beginning. Having been based on a faulty

tabulation, there can be no valid proclamation to speak of insofar as

respondent Castillo is concerned. As this Court once said:

"x x x Time and again, this Court has given its imprimatur on the principle

that Comelec is with authority to annul any canvass and proclamation which

was illegally made. The fact that a candidate proclaimed has assumed office,

we have said, is no bar to the exercise of such power. It, of course, may not

be availed of where there has been a valid proclamation. Since private

respondents petition before the Comelec is precisely directed at the

annulment of the canvass and proclamation, we perceive that inquiry into

this issue is within the area allocated by the Constitution and law to

Comelec.

x x x"We have but to reiterate the oft-cited rule that the validity of a

proclamation may be challenged even after the irregularly proclaimed

candidate has assumed office.

x x x

"It is, indeed, true that, after proclamation, the usual remedy of any party

aggrieved in an election is to be found in an election protest. But that is so

only on the assumption that there has been a valid proclamation. Where as

in the case at bar the proclamation itself is illegal, the assumption of office

cannot in any way affect the basic issues." (Aguam v. Commission on

Elections, 23 SCRA 883 [1968]; cited in Agbayani v. Commission on Elections,

186 SCRA 484 [1990]).25

Thus, the Comelec was correct in annulling the proclamation of petitioner

for being based on an erroneous computation of votes. As the Court

declared in Espidol v. Commission on Elections,26

where the proclamation is

null and void, the proclaimed candidates assumption of office cannot

deprive the Commission the power to declare such proclamation a nullity.

We emphasized that a defeated candidate cannot be deemed elected to the

office.27

In fine, the Comelec did not commit grave abuse of discretion in annulling

the proclamation of petitioner. In a special civil action for certiorari, the

burden is on the part of petitioner to prove not merely reversible error, butgrave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the

part of the public respondent issuing the impugned order. Grave abuse of

discretion means a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is

equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Mere abuse of discretion is not enough, it

must be so grave as when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic

manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and must be so patent

and so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual

refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of

law.28

To the credit of the MBOC, when it realized that it made a mistake in

computing the total number of votes for respondent Sumague, it took swift

action and called the attention of the Comelec by filing the Petition to

Correct Entries Made in the Statement of Votes for Councilor.

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Resolutions of the Commission on

Elections in SPC No. 04-209 dated July 21, 2004 and November 18, 2004 are

AFFIRMED. The Status Quo Order issued by the Court dated January 11,

2005 is LIFTED. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 186224 August 25, 2009

CONSTANCIO D. PACANAN, JR.,Petitioner, vs.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and FRANCISCO M. LANGI, SR.,Respondents.

/ LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:

Before the Court is a petition for certiorari which seeks to set aside 1) the

Order1dated March 17, 2008 of the Commission on Elections (Comelec) FirsDivision and 2) the Resolution

2dated January 21, 2009 of the Comelec En

Banc dismissing petitioner Constancio D. Pacanan, Jr.s appeal from the

Decision3of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 27, Catbalogan, Samar, in

Election Case No. 07-1, which declared private respondent Francisco M.

Langi, Sr. as the winning Mayor of Motiong, Samar.

In the Order of March 17, 2008, the Comelec First Division dismissed the

appeal for failure to pay the correct appeal fee as prescribed by the Comelec

Rules of Procedure within the five-day reglementary period.

In the assailed Resolution dated January 21, 2009, the Comelec En Banc

denied petitioners motion for reconsideration, declaring that the Comelec

did not acquire jurisdiction over the appeal because of the non-payment of

the appeal fee on time, and that the Comelec First Division was correct indismissing the said appeal.

The antecedent facts are as follows:

Petitioner Constancio D. Pacanan, Jr. and private respondent Francisco M.

Langi, Sr. were candidates for mayor in the municipality of Motiong, Samar

during the May 14, 2007 elections. After the canvassing of votes, the

Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) of Motiong, Samar proclaimed

petitioner as the duly elected mayor, having garnered a total of 3,069 votes

against private respondents 3,066 votes.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166046_2006.html#fnt23


4/23


Thereafter, private respondent filed with the RTC a Protest4dated May 25,

2007 which was docketed as Election Case No. 07-1, contesting the results

of the elections in ten (10) of the forty-nine (49) precincts in Motiong,

Samar, and alleging acts of violence and intimidation and other election

irregularities in the appreciation of the votes by the MBC. Thereafter,

petitioner filed his Verified Answer with Counter-Protest5dated June 4,

2007, asserting that private respondents allegations of threat and

intimidation, fraud and other irregularities in the conduct of elections were

mere allegations unsupported by any documentary evidence. Petitioner also

disputed the election results with respect to seven (7) precincts.

On January 7, 2008, the RTC rendered a decision6in Election Case 07-1,

which declared private respondent as the winner in the May 14, 2007

mayoralty race for Motiong, Samar with a plurality of six (6) votes, viz:

Wherefore, in view of the foregoing Protestant Francisco M. Langi, Sr.

having obtained the over all total votes of 3,074 and the Protestees 3,068

total and final votes is declared the winner in the Mayoralty contest in

Motiong, Samar with a plurality of (6) votes. Therefore the proclamation on

May 17, 2007 is hereby annulled and declared Francisco Langi, Sr. y Maceren

as the duly elected Mayor of Motiong, Samar. The winner is awarded the

amount of P 32,510 as actual damages and no evidence aliunde for damages

for the court to award. xxx

On January 10, 2008, petitioner filed a notice of appeal and paid P3,000.00

appeal fee per Official Receipt No. 6822663 before the RTC, Branch 27,

Catbalogan, Samar. He also appealed the RTC decision dated January 7, 2008

to the Comelec which docketed the case as EAC No. A-13-2008. Out of the

P3,000.00 appeal fee required by Section 3, Rule 40 of the Comelec Rules of

Procedure, petitioner only paid the amount of P1,000.00 (plus P200.00 to

cover the legal research/bailiff fees) to the Cash Division of the Comelec, per

Official Receipt No. 0510287. The said payment was made on February 14,

2008.7

On March 17, 2008, the Comelec First Division issued an Order8dismissing

the appeal, viz.:

Pursuant to Sections 3 and 4, Rule 40 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure

which provide for the payment of appeal fee in the amount of P3,000.00

within the period to file the notice of appeal, and Section 9 (a), Rule 22 of

the same Rules which provides that failure to pay the correct appeal fee is a

ground for the dismissal of the appeal, the Commission (First Division)

RESOLVED as it hereby RESOLVES to DISMISS the instant case for Protestee-

Appellants failure to pay the correct appeal fee as prescribed by the

Comelec Rules of Procedure within the five-(5)-day reglementary period.

SO ORDERED.

On March 28, 2008, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration9which the

Comelec En Banc denied in the Resolution10

dated January 21, 2009,

declaring that the appeal was not perfected on time for non-payment of the

complete amount of appeal fee and for late payment as well. The Comelec

En Banc held that the Comelec did not acquire jurisdiction over the appeal

because of the non-payment of the appeal fee on time. Thus, the Comelec

First Division correctly dismissed the appeal.

Hence, the instant petition for certiorari raising the following grounds:

The respondent COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting

to lack or excess of jurisdiction in holding that the correct appeal fee was not

paid on time.


to lack or excess of jurisdiction in failing to consider that assuming that the

correct appeal fee was not paid on time, the alleged non-payment of the

correct appeal fee is not in anyway attributable to herein petitioner.


to lack or excess of jurisdiction in failing to consider that assuming that the

correct appeal fee was not paid on time, there are highly justifiable and

compelling reasons to resolve the subject case on the merits in the interest

of justice and public interest.

Petitioner further claims that he paid a total of P4,215.00 for his appeal, as

follows:

a. To RTC on January 10, 2008 ------ P3,000.00

10.00

5.00

TOTAL P3,015.00

b. To Comelec on February 14, 2008 -- P1,000.00

50.00

150.00

TOTAL P1,200.00

Petitioner submits that it is incumbent upon the RTC to transmit to the

Comelec the entire P3,000.00 appeal fee that he paid on January 10, 2008.

Petitioner also advances another interpretation of the Comelec Rules that

the RTC is under obligation to remit to the Comelec the P2,000.00

representing the excess amount of the P1,000.00 appeal fee. Thus,

petitioner claims that he must be deemed to have complied, in full or at

least substantially, with the Comelec Rules on the payment of appeal fees.

Petitioner maintains that the alleged non-payment of the correct appeal fee

is not due to his own fault or negligence. He claims that the laws on appeals

in election protest cases are not yet well-established, thus, he must not be

made to suffer for an oversight made in good faith. The Resolution No. 8486of July 15, 2008 adopted by the Comelec to clarify the rules on compliance

with the required appeal fees in election cases should not be applied

retroactively to the subject election protest.

Lastly, petitioner invokes liberality in the application of the election law. He

asserts that the popular will of the people expressed in the election of public

officers should not be defeated by reason of sheer technicalities. Petitioner

argues that the true will of the people of Motiong in the May 14, 2007

elections should be determined by ordering the Comelec to give due course

to his appeal and to resolve the same on the merits.

In his Comment, respondent Langi, Sr. states that the petition was just a

mere rehash of the Motion for Reconsideration that petitioner filed with the

Comelec En Banc. Respondent maintains that for the Comelec to exercise itsauthority to administer proceedings, grant leniency, issue orders, and pass

judgment on issues presented, it must first be shown that it has acquired the

requisite jurisdiction over the subject matter pursuant to the initiatory acts

and procedural compliance set as conditions precedent.

Respondent also argues that the negligence and mistakes of petitioners

counsel bind petitioner. He then reiterates the cases where this Court held

that the non-payment or insufficiency of payment of filing fees is a valid

ground for the dismissal of the appeal and that the subsequent full payment

thereof does not cure the jurisdictional defect.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt4


5/23


We grant the petition.

Section 3, Rule 22 (Appeals from Decisions of Courts in Election Protest

Cases) of the Comelec Rules of Procedure mandates that the notice of

appeal must be filed within five (5) days after promulgation of the decision,

thus:

SEC. 3. Notice of Appeal.Within five (5) days after promulgation of the

decision of the court, the aggrieved party may file with said court a notice of

appeal, and serve a copy thereof upon the attorney of record of the adverse

party.

Moreover, Sections 3 and 4, Rule 40 of the Comelec rules require the

payment of appeal fees in appealed election protest cases, the amended

amount of which was set at P3,200.00 in Comelec Minute Resolution No. 02-

0130,11

to wit:

SEC. 3. Appeal Fees.The appellant in election cases shall pay an appeal fee

as follows:

(a) For election cases appealed from Regional Trial

Courts.P3,000.00 (per appellant)

(b) For election cases appealed from courts of limitedjurisdiction..P3,000.00 (per appellant)

SEC. 4. Where and When to Pay.The fees prescribed in Sections 1, 2 and 3

hereof shall be paid to, and deposited with, the Cash Division of the

Commission within a period to file the notice of appeal.

Sections 8 and 9, Rule 14 of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC12

also provide the

procedure for instituting an appeal and the required appeal fees to be paid

for the appeal to be given due course, to wit:

SEC. 8. Appeal.An aggrieved party may appeal the decision to the

Commission on Elections, within five days after promulgation, by filing a

notice of appeal with the court that rendered the decision, with copy served

on the adverse counsel or party if not represented by counsel.

SEC. 9. Appeal fee.The appellant in an election contest shall pay to the

court that rendered the decision an appeal fee of One Thousand Pesos

(P1,000.00), simultaneously with the filing of the notice of appeal.

A reading of the foregoing provisions reveals that two different tribunals

(the trial court that rendered the decision and the Comelec) require the

payment of two different appeal fees for the perfection of appeals of

election cases. This requirement in the payment of appeal fees had caused

much confusion, which the Comelec addressed through the issuance of

Comelec Resolution No. 8486.13

Thus, to provide clarity and to erase any

ambiguity in the implementation of the procedural rules on the payment of

appeal fees for the perfection of appeals of election cases, the resolution

provides:

WHEREAS, the Commission on Elections is vested with appellate jurisdiction

over all contests involving elective municipal officials decided by trial courts

of general jurisdiction, and those involving elective barangay officials,

decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction;

WHEREAS, Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 07-4-15 (Rules of

Procedure in Election Contests Before the Courts Involving Elective

Municipal and Barangay Officials) promulgated on May 15, 2007 provides in

Sections 8 and 9, Rule 14 thereof the procedure in instituting the appeal and

the required appeal fees to be paid for the appeal to be given due course, to

wit:

Section 8. Appeal.An aggrieved party may appeal the decision to the




Section 9. Appeal Fee.The appellant in an election contest shall pay to the



WHEREAS, payment of appeal fees in appealed election protest cases is also

required in Section 3, Rule 40 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure the

amended amount of which was set at P3,200.00 in COMELEC Minute

Resolution No. 02-0130 made effective on September 18, 2002.

WHEREAS, the requirement of these two appeal fees by two different

jurisdictions had caused confusion in the implementation by the

Commission on Elections of its procedural rules on payment of appeal fees

for the perfection of appeals of cases brought before it from the Courts of

General and Limited Jurisdictions.

WHEREAS, there is a need to clarify the rules on compliance with the

required appeal fees for the proper and judicious exercise of the

Commissions appellate jurisdiction over election protest cases.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Commission hereby RESOLVES to

DIRECT as follows:

1. That if the appellant had already paid the amount of P1,000.00 before the

Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court or lower

courts within the five-day period, pursuant to Section 9, Rule 14 of the Rules

of Procedure in Election Cases Before the Courts Involving Elective Municipa

and Barangay Officials (Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 07-4-15)

and his Appeal was given due course by the Court, said appellant is required

to pay the Comelec appeal fee of P3,200.00 at the Commissions Cash

Division through the Electoral Contests Adjudication Department (ECAD) or

by postal money order payable to the Commission on Elections throughECAD, within a period of fifteen days (15) from the time of the filing of the

Notice of Appeal with the lower court. If no payment is made within the

prescribed period, the appeal shall be dismissed pursuant to Section 9(a) of

Rule 22 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, which provides:

Sec. 9. Grounds for Dismissal of Appeal. The appeal may be dismissed upon

motion of either party or at the instance of the Commission on any of the

following grounds:

(a) Failure of the appellant to pay the correct appeal fee; xxx

2. That if the appellant failed to pay the P1,000.00appeal fee with the

lower court within the five (5) day period as prescribed by the Supreme

Court New Rules of Procedure but the case was nonetheless elevated to the

Commission, the appeal shall be dismissed outright by the Commission, in

accordance with the aforestated Section 9(a) of Rule 22 of the Comelec

Rules of Procedure.

The Education and Information Department is directed to cause the

publication of this resolution in two (2) newspapers of general circulation.

This resolution shall take effect on the seventh day following its publication.

SO ORDERED.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt11


6/23


Our ruling in the very recent case of Aguilar v. Comelec,14

quoted hereunder,

squarely applies to the instant case:

Sections 8 and 9, Rule 14 of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC provide for the following

procedure in the appeal to the COMELEC of trial court decisions in election

protests involving elective municipal and barangay officials:

SEC. 8. Appeal.An aggrieved party may appeal the decision to the




SEC. 9. Appeal fee.The appellant in an election contest shall pay to the



Section 8 was derived from Article IX-C, Section 2(2) of the Constitution and

Rule 40, Section 3, par. 1 and Rule 41, Section 2(a) of the Rules of Court.

Section 9 was taken from Rule 141, Sections 7(1) and 8(f) of the Rules of

Court.

It should be noted from the afore-quoted sections of the Rule that the

appeal fee of P1,000.00 is paid not to the COMELEC but to the trial court

that rendered the decision. Thus, the filing of the notice of appeal and the

payment of the P1,000.00 appeal fee perfect the appeal, consonant with

Sections 10 and 11 of the same Rule. Upon the perfection of the appeal, the

records have to be transmitted to the Electoral Contests Adjudication

Department of the COMELEC within 15 days. The trial court may only

exercise its residual jurisdiction to resolve pending incidents if the records

have not yet been transmitted and before the expiration of the period to

appeal.

With the promulgation of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC, the previous rule that the

appeal is perfected only upon the full payment of the appeal fee, now

pegged at P3,200.00, to the COMELEC Cash Division within the period to

appeal, as stated in the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, as amended, no

longer applies.

It thus became necessary for the COMELEC to clarify the procedural rules onthe payment of appeal fees. For this purpose, the COMELEC issued on July

15, 2008, Resolution No. 8486, which the Court takes judicial notice of. The

resolution pertinently reads:

x x x x x x x x x

The foregoing resolution is consistent with A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC and the

COMELEC Rules of Procedure, as amended. The appeal to the COMELEC of

the trial courts decision in election contests involving municipal and

barangay officials is perfected upon the filing of the notice of appeal and the

payment of the P1,000.00 appeal fee to the court that rendered the decision

within the five-day reglementary period. The non-payment or the

insufficient payment of the additional appeal fee of P3,200.00 to the

COMELEC Cash Division, in accordance with Rule 40, Section 3 of the

COMELEC Rules of Procedure, as amended, does not affect the perfection ofthe appeal and does not result in outright or ipso facto dismissal of the

appeal. Following, Rule 22, Section 9 (a) of the COMELEC Rules, the appeal

may be dismissed. And pursuant to Rule 40, Section 18 of the same rules, if

the fees are not paid, the COMELEC may refuse to take action thereon until

they are paid and may dismiss the action or the proceeding. In such a

situation, the COMELEC is merely given the discretion to dismiss the appeal

or not.

Accordingly, in the instant case, the COMELEC First Division, may dismiss

petitioners appeal, as it in fact did, for petitioners failure to pay the

P3,200.00 appeal fee.

Be that as it may, the Court finds that the COMELEC First Division gravely

abused its discretion in issuing the order dismissing petitioners appeal. The

Court notes that the notice of appeal and the P1,000.00 appeal fee were,

respectively, filed and paid with the MTC of Kapatagan, Lanao del Norte on

April 21, 2008. On that date, the petitioners appeal was deemed perfected.

COMELEC issued Resolution No. 8486 clarifying the rule on the payment of

appeal fees only on July 15, 2008, or almost three months after the appeal

was perfected. Yet, on July 31, 2008, or barely two weeks after the issuance

of Resolution No. 8486, the COMELEC First Division dismissed petitioners

appeal for non-payment to the COMELEC Cash Division of the additional

P3,200.00 appeal fee.1avvphi1

Considering that petitioner filed his appeal months before the clarificatory

resolution on appeal fees, petitioners appeal should not be unjustly

prejudiced by COMELEC Resolution No. 8486. Fairness and prudence dictate

that the COMELEC First Division should have first directed petitioner to pay

the additional appeal fee in accordance with the clarificatory resolution, and

if the latter should refuse to comply, then, and only then, dismiss the

appeal. Instead, the COMELEC First Division hastily dismissed the appeal on

the strength of the recently promulgated clarificatory resolutionwhich had

taken effect only a few days earlier. This unseemly haste is an invitation to

outrage.

The COMELEC First Division should have been more cautious in dismissing

petitioners appeal on the mere technicality of non-payment of the

additional P3,200.00 appeal fee given the public interest involved in electioncases. This is especially true in this case where only one vote separates the

contending parties. The Court stresses once more that election law and rules

are to be interpreted and applied in a liberal manner so as to give effect, not

to frustrate, the will of the electorate.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for certiorari is GRANTED.

The July 31, September 4 and October 6, 2008 Orders and the October 16

2008 Entry of Judgment issued by the COMELEC First Division in EAC (BRGY)

No. 211-2008 are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The case is REMANDED to the

COMELEC First Division for disposition in accordance with this Decision.

SO ORDERED. (Emphasis supplied)

From the foregoing discussion, it is clear that the appeal from the trial court

decision to the Comelec is perfected upon the filing of the notice of appeal

and the payment of the P1,000.00 appeal fee to the trial court that rendered

the decision. With the promulgation of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC, the perfection

of the appeal no longer depends solely on the full payment of the appeal fee

to the Comelec.

In the instant case, when petitioner filed his Notice of Appeal and paid the

appeal fee of P3,015.00 to the RTC on January 10, 2008, his appeal was

deemed perfected. However, Comelec Resolution No. 8486 also provides

that if the appellant had already paid the amount of P1,000.00 before the

trial court that rendered the decision, and his appeal was given due course

by the court, said appellant is required to pay the Comelec appeal fee of

P3,200.00 to the Comelecs Cash Division through the Electoral Contests

Adjudication Department (ECAD) or by postal money order payable to theComelec, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the time of the filing of

the Notice of Appeal with the lower court. However, if no payment is made

within the prescribed period, the appeal shall be dismissed pursuant to

Section 9 (a), Rule 22 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure, which provides:

SEC. 9. Grounds for Dismissal of Appeal.The appeal may be dismissed

upon motion of either party or at the instance of the Commission on any of

the following grounds:

(a) Failure of the appellant to pay the correct appeal fee; xxx
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt14


7/23


Thus, when petitioners appeal was perfected on January 10, 2008, within

five (5) days from promulgation, his non-payment or insufficient payment of

the appeal fee to the Comelec Cash Division should not have resulted in the

outright dismissal of his appeal. The Comelec Rules provide in Section 9 (a),

Rule 22, that for failure to pay the correct appeal fee, the appeal may be

dismissed upon motion of either party or at the instance of the Comelec.

Likewise, Section 18, Rule 4015

thereof also prescribes that if the fees are not

paid, the Comelec may refuse to take action on the appeal until the said fees

are paid and may dismiss the action or the proceeding.

Here, petitioner paid P1,200.00 to the Comelec on February 14, 2008.Unfortunately, the Comelec First Division dismissed the appeal on March 17,

2008 due to petitioners failure to pay the correct appeal fee within the five-

day reglementary period. In denying petitioners motion for reconsideration,

the Comelec En Banc, in the Resolution dated January 21, 2009, declared

that the Comelec did not acquire jurisdiction over the appeal because of the

non-payment of the appeal fee on time.

However, during the pendency of petitioners Motion for Reconsideration

dated March 27, 2008, the Comelec promulgated Resolution No. 8486 to

clarify the implementation of the Comelec Rules regarding the payment of

filing fees. Thus, applying the mandated liberal construction of election

laws,16

the Comelec should have initially directed the petitioner to pay the

correct appeal fee with the Comelec Cash Division, and should not have

dismissed outright petitioners appeal. This would have been more in

consonance with the intent of the said resolution which sought to clarify therules on compliance with the required appeal fees.

In Barroso v. Ampig, Jr.,17

we ruled, thus:

xxx An election contest, unlike an ordinary civil action, is clothed with a

public interest. The purpose of an election protest is to ascertain whether

the candidate proclaimed by the board of canvassers is the lawful choice of

the people. What is sought is the correction of the canvass of votes, which

was the basis of proclamation of the winning candidate. An election contest

therefore involves not only the adjudication of private and pecuniary

interests of rival candidates but paramount to their claims is the deep public

concern involved and the need of dispelling the uncertainty over the real

choice of the electorate. And the court has the corresponding duty to

ascertain by all means within its command who is the real candidate electedby the people.

Moreover, the Comelec Rules of Procedure are subject to a liberal

construction. This liberality is for the purpose of promoting the effective and

efficient implementation of the objectives of ensuring the holding of free,

orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections and for achieving just,

expeditious and inexpensive determination and disposition of every action

and proceeding brought before the Comelec. Thus we have declared:

It has been frequently decided, and it may be stated as a general rule

recognized by all courts, that statutes providing for election contests are to

be liberally construed to the end that the will of the people in the choice of

public officers may not be defeated by mere technical objections. An

election contest, unlike an ordinary action, is imbued with public interestsince it involves not only the adjudication of the private interests of rival

candidates but also the paramount need of dispelling the uncertainty which

beclouds the real choice of the electorate with respect to who shall

discharge the prerogatives of the office within their gift. Moreover, it is

neither fair nor just to keep in office for an uncertain period one whose right

to it is under suspicion. It is imperative that his claim be immediately cleared

not only for the benefit of the winner but for the sake of public interest,

which can only be achieved by brushing aside technicalities of procedure

which protract and delay the trial of an ordinary action.

WHEREFORE, the petition is granted. The Order dated March 17, 2008 of the

Comelec First Division and the Resolution dated January 21, 2009 of the

Comelec En Banc in EAC No. A-13-2008 are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.

Accordingly, let the case be REMANDED to the Comelec First Division for

further proceedings, in accordance with the rules and with this disposition.

The Regional Trial Court, Branch 27 of Catbalogan, Samar is DIRECTED to

refund to petitioner Constancio D. Pacanan, Jr., the amount of Two

Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) as the excess of the appeal fee per Official

Receipt No. 6822663 paid on January 10, 2008. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 185140 June 30, 2009

JERRY B. AGUILAR,Petitioner, vs.THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and

ROMULO R. INSOY,Respondents. / NACHURA, J.:

This petition for certiorari under Rules 64 and 65, which stems from

pertinent facts and proceedings narrated below, assails the issuances of the

Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in EAC (BRGY) No. 211-2008.

In the October 2007 barangay elections, petitioner Aguilar won the

chairmanship of Brgy. Bansarvil 1, Kapatagan, Lanao del Norte, over private

respondent Insoy by a margin of one vote. Not conceding his defeat, Insoy

timely instituted a protest docketed as Election Case No. 516 in the

Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Kapatagan.1On April 17, 2008, the MTC

rendered its Decision2finding Insoy, who, during the revision garnered 265votes as against Aguilars 264 votes, as the duly elected punong barangay.

The trial court consequently nullified the proclamation of Aguilar and

directed him to vacate the office.

Aggrieved, Aguilar filed on April 21, 2008 his notice of appeal3and paid to

the trial court the appeal fee of P1,000.004in accordance with Rule 14,

Sections 8 and 9 of the recently promulgated A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC or the

Rules of Procedure in Election Contests Before the Courts Involving Elective

Municipal and Barangay Officials.5

When the COMELEC received the records elevated by the trial court, its First

Division issued on July 31, 2008 the first assailed Order6which pertinently

reads:

Pursuant to Sections 3 and 4, Rule 40 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure

which provide for the payment of appeal fee in the amount of P/3,000.00

within the period to file the notice of appeal, and Section 9(a), Rule 22 of the

same Rules, which provides that failure to pay the correct appeal fee is a

ground for the dismissal of the appeal, the Commission (First Division)

RESOLVED as it hereby RESOLVES to DISMISS the instant appeal for

Protestant-Appellants (sic) failure to pay the appeal fee as prescribed by the

Comelec Rules of Procedure within the five-(5)-day reglementary period.

SO ORDERED.7

Adversely affected, Aguilar moved for reconsideration, arguing that the

newly promulgated A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC only requires the payment of

P1,000.00 as appeal fee.8The COMELEC First Division, however, issued on

September 4, 2008 the second assailed Order9stating

Acting on the "Motion for Reconsideration" filed by protestee-appellant

Jerry B. Aguilar, through registered mail on 13 August 2008 and received by

this Commission on 21 August 2008, seeking reconsideration of this

Commissions (First Division) Order dated 31 July 2008, this Commission

(First Division) RESOLVES to DENY the instant motion for movants (sic)

failure to pay the complete P700.00 motion fee.

SO ORDERED.10
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_186224_2009.html#fnt15


8/23


Unperturbed, Aguilar filed another motion for reconsideration, contending,

among others, that the order was null and void because it was issued in

violation of the rule that motions for reconsideration should be resolved by

the COMELEC en banc. On October 6, 2008, the COMELEC First Division

issued the third assailed Order,11

which reads in part:

Applying suppletorily Section 2, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court, the second

motion for reconsideration filed by protestee-appellant Jerry Aguilar on 25

September 2008 is hereby DENIED for being a prohibited pleading. And

considering that the Motion for Reconsideration filed by protestee-appellant

was denied per Order dated 4 September 2008 by the Commission (FirstDivision) for movants failure to pay the complete motion fee, the Order

dated 31 July 2008 is now final and executory.

WHEREFORE, let entry of judgment be issued in the instant case. The Judicial

Records Division-ECAD, this Commission, is hereby directed to remand

within three (3) days from receipt hereof the entire records of this case to

the court of origin for its proper disposition and return to the protestee-

appellant the Postal Money Order representing her motion fee in the

amount of one thousand one hundred pesos (P/1,100.00) pesos.

SO ORDERED.12

On October 16, 2008, the COMELEC First Division issued the Entry of

Judgment.13

Faced with imminent ouster from office, petitioner instituted the instant

petition to assail the aforementioned issuances of the COMELEC First

Division.

Readily discernable is that the challenged September 4 and October 6, 2008

Orders14

were issued not by the COMELEC en banc but by one of its

divisions, the First Division. Settled is the rule that it is the decision, order or

ruling of the COMELEC en banc which, in accordance with Article IX-A,

Section 715

of the Constitution, may be brought to this Court on certiorari.16

But this rule should not apply when a division of the COMELEC arrogates

unto itself, and deprives the en banc of the authority to rule on a motion for

reconsideration, as in this case. Further, the rule is not ironclad; it admits of

exceptions as when the decision or resolution sought to be set aside, even ifit were merely a Division action, is an absolute nullity.

17

The invalidity of the September 4 and October 6, 2008 Orders arises from

the very fact that they were issued by a division of the COMELEC. The

Constitution explicitly establishes, in Article IX-C, Section 3, the procedure

for the resolution of election cases by the COMELEC, thus:

Sec. 3. The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in two divisions, and

shall promulgate its rules of procedure in order to expedite disposition of

election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies. All such election

cases shall be heard and decided in division, provided that motions for

reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the Commission en banc.18

The COMELEC Rules of Procedure,19complementing the constitutionalprovision, also details the course of action to be undertaken in the event

motions for reconsideration are filed; thus, Rule 19, Sections 5 and 6 provide

that

Sec. 5. How Motion for Reconsideration Disposed Of.Upon the filing of a

motion to reconsider a decision, resolution, order or ruling of a Division, the

Clerk of Court concerned shall, within twenty-four (24) hours from the filing

thereof, notify the Presiding Commissioner. The latter shall within two (2)

days thereafter certify the case to the Commission en banc.

Sec. 6. Duty of Clerk of Court of Commission to Calendar Motion for

Reconsideration. The Clerk of Court concerned shall calendar the motion

for reconsideration for the resolution of the Commission en banc within ten

(10) days from the certification thereof.20

In this case, petitioners motion for reconsideration of the order dismissing

his appeal was not resolved by the COMELEC en banc, but by the COMELEC

First Division, in obvious violation of the provisions of the Constitution and

the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. Stated differently, the division, after

dismissing petitioners appeal, arrogated unto itself the en bancs function

of resolving petitioners motion for reconsideration. In Soriano, Jr. v.Commission on Elections,21

we emphasized the rule that a motion to

reconsider a decision, resolution, order or ruling of a COMELEC division,

except with regard to interlocutory orders, shall be elevated to the

COMELEC en banc. Here, there is no doubt that the order dismissing the

appeal is not merely an interlocutory, but a final order.22

It was, therefore,

incumbent upon the Presiding Commissioner of the COMELEC First Division

to certify the case to the COMELEC en banc within two days from

notification of the filing of the motion.

This rule should apply whether the motion fee has been paid or not, as what

happened in Olanolan v. Commission on Elections.23

Indeed, Rule 40, Section

1824

of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure gives discretion to the COMELEC, in

this case, to the en banc and not to the division, either to refuse to take

action until the motion fee is paid, or to dismiss the action or proceeding.25

The COMELEC First Divisions unceremonious departure from this

constitutionally mandated procedure in the disposition of election cases

must have brought confusion to the parties, so much so, that petitioner filed

a second motion for reconsideration raising this issue. Yet, the COMELEC

First Division, in the further assailed October 6, 2008 Order, committed

another obvious error when it again usurped the en bancs authority to

resolve motions for reconsideration.

Being a violation of the Constitution and the COMELEC Rules of Procedure,

the assailed September 4 and October 6, 2008 Orders are null and void.

They were issued by the COMELEC First Division with grave abuse of

discretion. By grave abuse of discretion is meant such capricious and

whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Mere

abuse of discretion is not enough. It must be grave, as when it is exercisedarbitrarily or despotically by reason of passion or personal hostility. The

abuse must be so patent and so gross as to amount to an evasion of a

positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at

all in contemplation of law.26

Clearly, by arrogating unto itself a power

constitutionally lodged in the Commission en banc, the COMELEC First

Division, in this case, exercised judgment in excess of, or without,

jurisdiction.

However, instead of remanding this case to the COMELEC en banc for

appropriate action on petitioners motion for reconsideration, we will

resolve the propriety of the appeals dismissal, considering the urgent need

for the resolution of election cases, and considering that the issue has, after

all, been raised in this petition.

Sections 8 and 9, Rule 14 of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC27

provide for the following

procedure in the appeal to the COMELEC of trial court decisions in election

protests involving elective municipal and barangay officials:

SEC. 8.Appeal.An aggrieved party may appeal the decision to the



http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt11


9/23


SEC. 9.Appeal fee.The appellant in an election contest shall pay to the



Section 8 was derived from Article IX-C, Section 2(2)28

of the Constitution

and Rule 40, Section 3, par. 129

and Rule 41, Section 2(a)30

of the Rules of

Court.31

Section 9 was taken from Rule 141,32

Sections 7(l)33

and 8(f)34

of the

Rules of Court.35

It should be noted from the afore-quoted sections of the Rule that the

appeal fee of P1,000.00 is paid not to the COMELEC but to the trial courtthat rendered the decision. Thus, the filing of the notice of appeal and the

payment of the P1,000.00 appeal fee perfect the appeal, consonant with

Sections 10 and 11 of the same Rule. Upon the perfection of the appeal, the

records have to be transmitted to the Electoral Contests Adjudication

Department of the COMELEC within 15 days. The trial court may only

exercise its residual jurisdiction to resolve pending incidents if the records

have not yet been transmitted and before the expiration of the period to

appeal.36

With the promulgation of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC, the previous rule that the

appeal is perfected only upon the full payment of the appeal fee, now

pegged at P3,200.00, to the COMELEC Cash Division within the period to

appeal, as stated in the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, as amended,37

no

longer applies.

It thus became necessary for the COMELEC to clarify the procedural rules on

the payment of appeal fees. For this purpose, the COMELEC issued on July

15, 2008, Resolution No. 8486,38

which the Court takes judicial notice

of.1avvphi1The resolution pertinently reads:

WHEREAS, the Commission on Elections is vested with appellate jurisdiction

over all contests involving elective municipal officials decided by trial courts

of general jurisdiction, and those involving elective barangay officials,

decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction;

WHEREAS, Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 07-4-15 (Rules of

Procedure in Election Contests Before the Courts Involving Elective

Municipal and Barangay Officials) promulgated on May 15, 2007 provides inSections 8 and 9, Rule 14 thereof the procedure for instituting the appeal

and the required appeal fees to be paid for the appeal to be given due

course, to wit:

Section 8. Appeal. - An aggrieved party may appeal the decision to the




Section 9. Appeal fee. - The appellant in an election contest shall pay to the



WHEREAS, payment of appeal fees in appealed election protest cases is alsorequired in Section 3, Rule 40 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure the

amended amount of which was set at P3,200.00 in COMELEC Minute

Resolution No. 02-0130 made effective on September 18, 2002.

WHEREAS, the requirement of these two appeal fees by two different

jurisdictions had caused confusion in the implementation by the

Commission on Elections of its procedural rules on payment of appeal fees

for the perfection of appeals of cases brought before it from the Courts of

General and Limited Jurisdictions.

WHEREAS, there is a need to clarify the rules on compliance with the

required appeal fees for the proper and judicious exercise of the

Commission's appellate jurisdiction over election protest cases.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Commission hereby RESOLVES to

DIRECT as follows:

1. That if the appellant had already paid the amount of P1,000.00 before the

Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court or lower

courts within the five-day period, pursuant to Section 9, Rule 14 of the Rules

of Procedure in Election Contests Before the Courts Involving ElectiveMunicipal and Barangay Officials (Supreme Court Administrative Order No.

07-4-15) and his Appeal was given due course by the Court, said appellant is

required to pay the Comelec appeal fee of P3,200.00 at the Commission's

Cash Division through the Electoral Contests Adjudication Department

(ECAD) or by postal money order payable to the Commission on Elections

through ECAD, within a period of fifteen days (15) from the time of the filing

of the Notice of Appeal with the lower court. If no payment is made within

the prescribed period, the appeal shall be dismissed pursuant to Section 9(a

of Rule 22 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, which provides:

Sec. 9. Grounds for Dismissal of Appeal. The appeal may be dismissed upon

motion of either party or at the instance of the Commission on any of the

following grounds:

(a) Failure of the appellant to pay the correct appeal fee; x x x

2. That if the appellant failed to pay the P1,000.00 - appeal fee with the

lower court within the five (5) day period as prescribed by the Supreme

Court New Rules of Procedure but the case was nonetheless elevated to the

Commission, the appeal shall be dismissed outright by the Commission, in

accordance with the aforestated Section 9(a) of Rule 22 of the Comelec

Rules of Procedure.

The Education and Information Department is directed to cause the

publication of this resolution in two (2) newspapers of general circulation.

This resolution shall take effect on the seventh day following its publication.

SO ORDERED.39

The foregoing resolution is consistent with A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC and the

COMELEC Rules of Procedure, as amended. The appeal to the COMELEC of

the trial courts decision in election contests involving municipal and

barangay officials is perfected upon the filing of the notice of appeal and the

payment of the P1,000.00 appeal fee to the court that rendered the decision

within the five-day reglementary period. The non-payment or the

insufficient payment of the additional appeal fee of P3,200.00 to the

COMELEC Cash Division, in accordance with Rule 40, Section 3 of the

COMELEC Rules of Procedure, as amended, does not affect the perfection of

the appeal and does not result in outright or ipso facto dismissal of the

appeal. Following, Rule 22, Section 9(a) of the COMELEC Rules, the appeal

may be dismissed. And pursuant to Rule 40, Section 1840

of the same rules, if

the fees are not paid, the COMELEC may refuse to take action thereon untilthey are paid and may dismiss the action or the proceeding. In such a

situation, the COMELEC is merely given the discretion to dismiss the appeal

or not.41

Accordingly, in the instant case, the COMELEC First Division, may dismiss

petitioners appeal, as it in fact did, for petitioners failure to pay the


Be that as it may, the Court still finds that the COMELEC First Division gravely

abused its discretion in issuing the order dismissing petitioners appeal. The

Court notes that the notice of appeal and the P1,000.00 appeal fee were,
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_185140_2009.html#fnt28


10/23


respectively, filed and paid with the MTC of Kapatagan, Lanao del Norte on

April 21, 2008. On that date, the petitioners appeal was deemed perfected.

COMELEC issued Resolution No. 8486 clarifying the rule on the payment of

appeal fees only on July 15, 2008, or almost three months after the appeal

was perfected. Yet, on July 31, 2008, or barely two weeks after the issuance

of Resolution No. 8486, the COMELEC First Division dismissed petitioners

appeal for non-payment to the COMELEC Cash Division of the additional


Considering that petitioner filed his appeal months before the clarificatory

resolution on appeal fees, petitioners appeal should not be unjustlyprejudiced by COMELEC Resolution No. 8486. Fairness and prudence dictate

that the COMELEC First Division should have first directed petitioner to pay

the additional appeal fee in accordance with the clarificatory resolution, and

if the latter should refuse to comply, then, and only then, dismiss the

appeal. Instead, the COMELEC First Division hastily dismissed the appeal on

the strength of the recently promulgated clarificatory resolutionwhich had

taken effect only a few days earlier. This unseemly haste is an invitation to

outrage.

The COMELEC First Division should have been more cautious in dismissing

petitioners appeal on the mere technicality of non-payment of the

additional P3,200.00 appeal fee given the public interest involved in election

cases. This is especially true in this case where only one vote separates the

contending parties. The Court stresses once more that election law and rules

are to be interpreted and applied in a liberal manner so as to give effect, notto frustrate, the will of the electorate.

42

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for certiorari is GRANTED.

The July 31, September 4 and October 6, 2008 Orders and the October 16,

2008 Entry of Judgment issued by the COMELEC First Division in EAC (BRGY)

No. 211-2008 are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The case is REMANDED to the

COMELEC First Division for disposition in accordance with this Decision. SO

ORDERED.

G.R. No. 184801 July 30, 2009

JONAS TAGUIAM,Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and

ANTHONY C. TUDDAO,Respondents./ YNARES-SANTIAGO,J.:

This petition for certiorariwith prayer for issuance of a temporary

restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction1assails the December20, 2007 Resolution

2of the Second Division of the Commission on Elections

(COMELEC) in SPC No. 07-171 which granted private respondent Anthony C.

Tuddaos Petition for Correction of Manifest Error and Annulment of

Proclamation of petitioner Jonas Taguiam as the 12th winning candidate for

the Sangguniang Panglungsodof Tuguegarao City, Cagayan. Also assailed is

the October 9, 2008 Resolution3of the COMELEC En Bancdenying

petitioners Motion for Reconsideration.4

Petitioner and private respondent were candidates for the position of

Sangguniang Panglungsodof Tuguegarao City in Cagayan during the 2007

National and Local Elections. On May 19, 2007, petitioner was proclaimed by

the City Board of Canvassers (CBOC) as the 12th ranking and winning

candidate for the said position with 10,981 votes.5Private respondent

obtained 10,971 votes6and was ranked no. 13.

On May 25, 2007, private respondent filed with the COMELEC a petition for

correction of manifest errors in the Election Returns and Statement of Votes

for 27 clustered precincts7and for the annulment of the proclamation of the

affected winning candidate in Tuguegarao City. He alleged that he was

credited with less votes in several Statements of Votes by Precincts (SOVP)

as compared with the tally of his votes in the election returns ERs), whereas

petitioner was credited with more votes. Private respondent offered

evidence in the following nine precincts: 0035A/0036A, 0061A/0063A,

69A/69B, 87A/87B, 192A/192B, 264A/265A, 324A/325B, 326A, and 328B.

Petitioner denied the allegations of private respondent and argued that the

petition should be dismissed for having been filed late or six days after the

proclamation of the winning candidates.8Meanwhile, the members of the

CBOC of Tuguegarao City denied private respondents allegations of

manifest errors in the SOVP; maintained th

Documents

Elections Cases