EN BANC
|
CONSTANCIO
D. PACANAN, JR., Petitioner, -
versus - COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS and FRANCISCO M. LANGI, SR., Respondents. |
G.R.
No. 186224
Present: PUNO, C.J., QUISUMBING, YNARES-SANTIAGO,* CARPIO, CORONA, CARPIO MORALES, CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA,** LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BRION, PERALTA, BERSAMIN, DEL CASTILLO, and ABAD, JJ. Promulgated: August 25, 2009 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
Before the Court is a petition for
certiorari which seeks to set aside 1) the Order[1]
dated
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 petitioner’s 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 in dismissing 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
Thereafter, private respondent filed
with the RTC a Protest[4]
dated 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-Protest[5]
dated June 4, 2007, asserting that private respondent’s 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 decision[6] in
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 Protestee’s 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
On P3,000.00 appeal fee per Official Receipt No.
6822663 before the RTC, Branch 27, Catbalogan, 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
On March 17, 2008, the Comelec First
Division issued an Order[8]
dismissing 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-Appellant’s 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
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.
The respondent COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting 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.
The respondent COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting 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 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. 8486 of 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 its authority 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 petitioner’s 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.
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 limited
jurisdiction…..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.
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 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.
Section 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.
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 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 Cases Before the Courts Involving
Elective Municipal and Barangay Officials (Supreme Court Administrative Order
No. 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; xxx
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.
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 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.
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 on the 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:
xxx xxx xxx
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 court’s 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 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 petitioner’s
appeal, as it in fact did, for petitioner’s 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 petitioner’s 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 petitioner’s 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
petitioner’s appeal for non-payment to the COMELEC Cash Division of the
additional P3,200.00 appeal fee.
Considering that petitioner filed his
appeal months before the clarificatory resolution on appeal fees, petitioner’s
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
resolution – which 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
petitioner’s 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, 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.
In
the instant case, when petitioner filed his Notice of Appeal and paid the
appeal fee of P3,015.00 to the RTC on 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 Comelec’s Cash Division
through the Electoral Contests Adjudication Department (ECAD) or by postal
money order payable to the Comelec, 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
Thus, when petitioner’s appeal was
perfected on
Here, petitioner paid P1,200.00
to the Comelec on February 14, 2008.
Unfortunately, the Comelec First Division dismissed the appeal on
However, during the pendency of
petitioner’s 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 petitioner’s appeal. This would
have been more in consonance with the intent of the said resolution which
sought to clarify the rules 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 elected by 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 interest since 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 P2,000.00) as the excess of the appeal fee
per Official Receipt No. 6822663 paid on January 10, 2008.
SO ORDERED.
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
|
(On
official leave)
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice
|
|
ANTONIO T.
CARPIO Associate Justice
|
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
|
|
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
MINITA V.
CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
|
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice
|
(No part) ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice
|
|
ARTURO D.
BRION Associate Justice |
DIOSDADO
M. PERALTA Associate Justice |
|
LUCAS P.
BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
MARIANO C.
Associate Justice |
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice |
|
Chief Justice
* On official leave.
** No part.
[1] Rollo, p. 32.
[2] Id. at 34-42.
[3] Id. at 43-128.
[4] Id. at 129-139.
[5] Id. at 140-149.
[6] Supra note 3.
[7] Footnote 3 of the Order dated
[8] Supra note 1.
[9] Rollo, pp. 150-164.
[10] Supra note 2.
[11] Effective on P3,000.00 as appeal fee plus P150.00 for bailiff’s fee
and P50.00 for legal research fee.
[12] Entitled “Rules of Procedure in
Election Contests before the Courts Involving Elective Municipal and Barangay
Officials,” promulgated on
[13] Entitled “In the Matter of
Clarifying the Implementation of COMELEC Rules Re: Payment of Filing Fees for Appealed Cases
Involving Barangay and Municipal Elective Positions from the Municipal Trial
Courts, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts and Regional
Trial Courts,” promulgated on
[14] G.R. No. 185140,
[15] Rule 40, Sec. 18 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure provides:
Sec. 18. Non-payment of Prescribed Fees. – If the fees above prescribed are not paid, Commission may refuse to take action thereon until they are paid and may dismiss the action or the proceeding.
[16] Section 3, Rule 1, Comelec Rules of Procedure which reads:
SEC. 3. Construction. – These rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote the effective and efficient implementation of the objectives of ensuring the holding of free, orderly, hones, peaceful and credible elections and to achieve just, expeditious and inexpensive determination and disposition of every action and proceeding brought before the Commission.
[17] G.R. No. 138218, March 17, 2000, 328 SCRA 530, 541-542; citing Pahilan v. Tabalba, G.R. No. 110170, February 21, 1994, 230 SCRA 205, 212-213.