|
CARMELINDA
C. BARRO, Petitioner, -
versus
– THE COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS (FIRST DIVISION); HON. DELIA P. NOEL-BERTULFO, in her capacity
as Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court, Palompon, Respondents. |
G.R. No. 186201 Present:
Puno, C.J., * Quisumbing,** CARPIO, CARPIO MORALES, chico-nazario,** velasco, jr., nachura, LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, BRION, PERALTA, BERSAMIN, ABAD, JJ. Promulgated: October 9,
2009 |
x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
This is a petition for certiorari[1]
alleging that the First Division of the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the Orders dated
The facts are as follows:
Petitioner
Carmelinda C. Barro and private respondent Elpedio P. Continedas, Jr. were
candidates for Punong Barangay of Barangay Plaridel, Palompon,
On
After the
revision of ballots, the trial court found that petitioner and respondent both
garnered 151 votes.
In its Decision[4] dated
In sum, the Protestant is credited with three
(3) votes and the Protestee with two (2) votes of the contested votes.
The three (3) credited votes added to the 148 votes of the protestant
equals 151 votes. The two (2) credited votes added to the 149 votes of the
protestee equals 151 votes. The protestant and the protestee, therefore,
received the same number of votes.
It appearing that the Protestant and the Protestee received the same
number of votes for the position of Barangay Chairman of Brgy. Plaridel,
Palompon,
On
On
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 appeal for
Protestee-AppeIlant's failure to pay the appeal fee as prescribed by the
Comelec Rules of Procedure within the five (5)-day reglementary period.[8]
On P3,200.00
payable to the Cash Division of the
COMELEC to cover the appeal fee.
Petitioner’s motion
for reconsideration was denied by the First Division of the COMELEC in its Order dated
Protestee-Appellant's "Motion for
Reconsideration" filed thru registered mail on 15 December 2008 and
received on 23 December 2008, seeking reconsideration of the Commission's (First
Division) Order dated 25 November 2008, is hereby DENIED for failure of the
movant to pay the necessary motion fees under Sec. 7 (f), Rule 40 of the
Comelec Rules of Procedure as amended by Comelec Resolution No. 02-0130. The
Judicial Records Division-ECAD, this Commission, is hereby directed to return
to the protestee-appellant the Postal Money Order Nos. A0820039317 in the
amount of two thousand pesos (P2,000.00); B0810040373 in the amount of
one thousand pesos (P1,000.00) and J1350301774 in the amount of two hundred
pesos (P200.00) representing his belated payment of appeal fee.[10]
On
1.
WHETHER OR NOT THE [FIRST
DIVISION OF THE COMELEC] COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK
OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL.
2.
WHETHER OR NOT THE [FIRST
DIVISION OF THE COMELEC] COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK
OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN DENYING THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION FILED BY PETITIONER.
3.
WHETHER OR NOT THE [FIRST
DIVISION OF THE COMELEC] COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK
OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN ACTING ON THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WITHOUT
ELEVATING THE SAME TO THE COMELEC EN BANC.[11]
The first issue is whether or not the First Division of the COMELEC gravely
abused its discretion in dismissing petitioner’s appeal.
Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment
amounting to lack of jurisdiction or an arbitrary and
despotic exercise of power because of passion or personal hostility.[12] The grave abuse of discretion must be so
patent and gross as to amount to an evasion or refusal to perform a duty
enjoined by law.[13]
The Court notes that in petitioner’s Notice of Appeal,[14] she manifested payment of
the appeal fees and other lawful fees required for the appeal per Official
Receipt Nos. 7719538 and 7719488.
However, the receipts were not attached to the record of the case. In her Petition, petitioner stated that when
she filed her Notice of Appeal on May
13, 2008, she also paid the appeal
fee required under Section 9, Rule 14 of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC.[15] In her Reply,[16] petitioner also stated that
she relied on the provision of Sections 8 and 9, Rule 14 of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC,[17] which took effect on May 15, 2007, and that
she believed in good faith that the said
new Rules of Procedure repealed the COMELEC Rules.
Based on petitioner’s pleadings and the fact that the trial court gave due
course to petitioner’s appeal, it may be
presumed that petitioner paid the appeal fee of P1,000.00 to the trial
court simultaneously with the filing of the Notice of Appeal, despite absence
of the receipt showing payment of the appeal fee of P1,000.00.
Petitioner contends in her Reply[18] that the recent case of Jerry
B. Aguilar v. Commission on Elections,
et al.,[19]
applies to her case. The Court agrees with petitioner.
In Aguilar, petitioner Aguilar
won as barangay chairman in the P1,000.00 to the municipal
trial court in accordance with A.M. No.
07-4-15-SC. The First Division of the
COMELEC dismissed his appeal pursuant to Section 9 (a), Rule 22 of the COMELEC
Rules of Procedure for non-payment of the appeal fee of P3,000.00 as required
in Sections 3 and 4, Rule 40 of the same Rules. His first and second motions for
reconsideration were denied by the First Division of the COMELEC. He filed a petition for certiorari with this Court, which held:
x
x x x
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
x x x x
x x x 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 still 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 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.
In
this case, the appeal to the COMELEC was perfected when petitioner filed her
Notice of Appeal and paid the appeal fee of P1,000.00 on P3,200.00 in accordance with the clarificatory resolution; and if
petitioner refused to comply, only then
should the appeal be dismissed. The First Division of the COMELEC should have
been more cautious in dismissing petitioner’s appeal on the mere technicality
of non-payment of the additional appeal fee of P3,200.00 given the
public interest involved in election cases.[21]
In
view of the foregoing, the Court finds that the First Division of the COMELEC
gravely abused its discretion in issuing the Order dated P1,000.00 as required under Section 9, Rule 14 of
A. M. No. 07-4-15-SC.
It
must be stated, however, that for notices of appeal filed after the
promulgation on
The
second and third issues shall be discussed jointly.
Petitioner contends
that the First Division of
the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in acting on the motion for reconsideration without elevating the
same to the COMELEC en banc, and in
denying the motion for reconsideration.
The contention is meritorious.
It is settled that under
Section 7, Article IX-A of the Constitution,[23]
what may be brought to this Court on certiorari
is the decision, order or ruling of the COMELEC en banc. However, 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, like in this case.[24]
Section 3, Article IX-C
of the Constitution provides for 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.
The constitutional provision is
reflected in Sections 5 and 6, Rule 19 of
the COMELEC Rules of Procedure as follows:
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.
In this case, the First
Division of the COMELEC violated the cited provisions of the Constitution and the
COMELEC Rules of Procedure when it resolved petitioner's motion for
reconsideration of its final Order dated
Petitioner stated in
her Reply[26] that on
WHEREFORE,
the petition is GRANTED. The Orders dated November 25, 2008 and January 9, 2009 by the First Division of the COMELEC, and the
Entry of Judgment issued on April 1,
2009 by the Electoral Contests Adjudication Department are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The case is REMANDED to the First Division of the Commission
on Elections for disposition in accordance with this Decision.
No costs.
SO
ORDERED.
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
On Official Leave
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
|
On Leave LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate
Justice
|
ANTONIO T.
CARPIO Associate Justice |
|
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice
|
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice
|
|
On Leave MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J.
VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
|
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate
Justice
|
TERESITA J.
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
|
ARTURO D.
BRION Associate Justice |
LUCAS P.
BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
|
MARIANO C. Associate Justice |
ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate Justice |
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had
been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Acting Chief Justice
* On official leave.
** On leave.
[1] Under Rule 64 in relation to Rules
65 of the Rules of Court.
[2] Rollo,
p. 26.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7] Rule 14, 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.
[8] Rollo,
p. 26.
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12] Batul v. Bayron, 468 Phil.
131, 148 (2004).
[13]
[14] Supra
note 6.
[15] Rule 14, 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.
[16] Rollo, pp. 97-100.
[17] Rule
14, 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.
Rule 14, 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.
[18] Rollo, pp. 103-110.
[19] G.R. No. 185140,
.
[20]
COMELEC
RESOLUTION NO. 8486
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
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 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 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
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 Elective
Municipal 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; . . .
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.
[21] Aguilar v. Commission on
Elections, supra note 19.
[22] G.R.
Nos. 186007 & 186016,
[23] Art. IX. Sec. 7. Each Commission
shall decide by a majority vote of all its members any case or matter brought
before it within sixty days from the date of its submission for decision or
resolution. A case or matter is deemed
submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading,
brief, or memorandum required by the rules of the Commission or by the Commission
itself. Unless otherwise provided by
this Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling or each Commission
may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within
thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof.
[24] Aguilar v. Commission on
Elections, supra note 19.
[25]
[26] Rollo, pp. 103-109.