Republic of the
Supreme Court
EN BANC
|
LUIS A. ASISTIO, Petitioner, - versus - HON. THELMA CANLAS
TRINIDAD-PE AGUIRRE, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Caloocan City,
Branch 129; HON. ARTHUR O. MALABAGUIO, Presiding Judge, Metropolitan Trial
Court, Caloocan City, Branch 52; ENRICO R. ECHIVERRI, Board of Election
Inspectors of Precinct 1811A, Barangay 15, Caloocan City; and the CITY
ELECTION OFFICER, Caloocan City, Respondents. |
|
G.R. No. 191124 Present: PUNO, C.J., CARPIO, CARPIO MORALES, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BRION, PERALTA, BERSAMIN, ABAD, VILLARAMA, JR., PEREZ, and MENDOZA, JJ. Promulgated: April
27, 2010 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
NACHURA, J.:
This
is a petition[1] for certiorari, with prayer for the issuance
of a status quo ante order, under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Order[2]
dated February 15, 2010 issued, allegedly with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, by public respondent Judge Thelma
Canlas Trinidad-Pe Aguirre (Judge Aguirre) of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 129, Caloocan City in SCA No. 997.
The petition likewise ascribes error in, and seeks to nullify, the decision
dated February 5, 2010, promulgated by the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC),
Branch 52,
The Antecedents
On
January 26, 2010, private respondent Enrico R. Echiverri (Echiverri) filed
against petitioner Luis A. Asistio (Asistio) a Petition[3]
for Exclusion of Voter from the Permanent List of Voters of Caloocan City
(Petition for Exclusion) before the MeTC, Branch 52,
In
his petition, Echiverri alleged that Asistio is not a resident of
Echiverri also claimed that Asistio was
no longer residing in this address, since what appeared in the latter’s COC for
Mayor[6] in
the 2007 elections was No. 110 Unit 1,
On
January 28, 2010, the MeTC issued a Notice of Hearing[10]
notifying Asistio, through Atty. Carlos M. Caliwara, his counsel of record in
SPA No. 09-151 (DC), entitled “Asistio v.
Echiverri,” before the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), of the scheduled
hearings of the case on February 1, 2 and 3, 2010.
On
February 2, 2010, Asistio filed his Answer Ex
Abundante Ad Cautelam with Affirmative Defenses.[11] Asistio
alleged that he is a resident of No. 116,
Trial on the merits ensued, after
which Judge Malabaguio directed the parties to file their respective position
papers on or before February 4, 2010.
Echiverri
filed his Memorandum[13]
on February 4, 2010. Asistio, on the other hand, failed to file his memorandum
since the complete transcripts of stenographic notes (TSN) were not yet
available.[14]
On February 5, 2010, Judge Malabaguio
rendered a decision,[15]
disposing, as follows —
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
Election Registration Board,
SO ORDERED.[16]
Meanwhile,
on January 26, 2010, Echiverri filed with the COMELEC a Petition for
Disqualification,[17]
which was docketed as SPA No. 10-013 (DC). The Petition was anchored on the
grounds that Asistio is not a resident of
On
February 10, 2010, Asistio filed his Notice of Appeal[19]
and his Appeal (from the Decision dated February 5, 2010)[20]
and paid the required appeal fees through postal money orders.[21]
On
February 11, 2010, Echiverri filed a Motion[22]
to Dismiss Appeal, arguing that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the
Appeal on the ground of failure to file the required appeal fees.
On
the scheduled hearing of February 15, 2010, Asistio opposed the Motion and
manifested his intention to file a written comment or opposition thereto. Judge
Aguirre directed Echiverri’s counsel to file the appropriate responsive
pleading to Asistio’s appeal in her Order[23]
of same date given in open court.
Judge
Aguirre, however, cancelled her February 15, 2010 Order, and issued an Amended
Order[24]
on that date holding in abeyance the filing of the responsive pleading of
Echiverri’s counsel and submitting the Motion for resolution.
In
another Order also dated February 15, 2010, Judge Aguirre granted the Motion on
the ground of non-payment of docket fees essential for the RTC to acquire
jurisdiction over the appeal. It stated that Asistio paid his docket fee only
on February 11, 2010 per the Official Receipt of the MeTC, Office of the Clerk
of Court.
Hence, this petition.
Per Resolution[25]
dated February 23, 2010, this Court required the respondents to comment on the
petition, and issued the Status Quo Ante
Order prayed for.
On March, 8, 2010, Echiverri filed
his Comment to the Petition (with Motion to Quash Status Quo Ante Order).
Departing from Echiverri’s position against the Petition, the Office of the
Solicitor General (OSG), on March 30, 2010, filed its Comment via registered mail. The OSG points out
that Asistio’s family is “known to be one of the prominent political families
in
Our Ruling
In her assailed Order, Judge Aguirre
found —
The payment of docket fees is an essential requirement for the perfection of an appeal.
The record shows that Respondent-Appellant paid his docket fee only on February 11, 2010, evidenced by O.R. No. 05247240 for Php1,510.00 at the Metropolitan Trial Court, Office of the Clerk of Court, yet the Notice of Appeal was filed on February 10, 2010, at 5:30 p.m., which is way beyond the official office hours, and a copy thereof was filed at the Office of the Clerk of Court, Metropolitan Trial Court at 5:00 p.m. of February 10, 2010. Thus, it is clear that the docket fee was not paid simultaneously with the filing of the Notice of Appeal.
It taxes the credulity of the Court why the Notice of Appeal was filed beyond the regular office hours, and why did respondent-appellant had to resort to paying the docket fee at the Mall of Asia when he can conveniently pay it at the Office of the Clerk of Court, Metropolitan Trial Court along with the filing of the Notice of Appeal on February 10, 2010 at 5:30 p.m. at the Metropolitan Trial Court, which is passed [sic] the regular office hours.
The conclusion is then inescapable that for failure to pay the appellate docket fee, the Court did not acquire jurisdiction over the case.[26]
This
Court observes, that while Judge Aguirre declares in her Order that the
appellate docket fees were paid on February 11, 2010, she conveniently omits to
mention that the postal money orders obtained by Asistio for the purpose were
purchased on February 10, 2010.[27] It
is noteworthy that, as early as February 4, 2010, Asistio already manifested
that he could not properly file his memorandum with the MeTC due to the
non-availability of the TSNs. Obviously, these TSNs were needed in order to
prepare an intelligent appeal from the questioned February 5, 2010 MeTC Order. Asistio
was able to get copies of the TSNs only on February 10, 2010, the last day to
file his appeal, and, naturally, it would take some time for him to review and
incorporate them in his arguments on appeal. Understandably, Asistio filed his
notice of appeal and appeal, and purchased the postal money orders in payment
of the appeal fees on the same day. To our mind, Asistio, by purchasing the postal
money orders for the purpose of paying the appellate docket fees on February
10, 2010, although they were tendered to the MeTC only on February 11, 2010,
had already substantially complied with the procedural requirements in filing
his appeal.
This
appeal to the RTC assails the February 5, 2010 MeTC Order directing Asistio’s
name to be removed from the permanent list of voters [in Precinct 1811A] of
The right to vote is a most precious
political right, as well as a bounden duty of every citizen, enabling and
requiring him to participate in the process of government to ensure that it can
truly be said to derive its power solely from the consent of its constituents.[28]
Time and again, it has been said that every Filipino’s right to vote shall be
respected, upheld, and given full effect.[29] A
citizen cannot be disenfranchised for the flimsiest of reasons. Only on the
most serious grounds, and upon clear and convincing proof, may a citizen be
deemed to have forfeited this precious heritage of freedom.
In this case, even if we assume for the
sake of argument, that the appellate docket fees were not filed on time, this
incident alone should not thwart the proper determination and resolution of the
instant case on substantial grounds. Blind adherence to a technicality, with
the inevitable result of frustrating and nullifying the constitutionally
guaranteed right of suffrage, cannot be countenanced.[30]
On more than one occasion, this Court
has recognized the emerging trend towards a liberal construction of procedural
rules to serve substantial justice. Courts have the prerogative to relax rules
of even the most mandatory character, mindful of the duty to reconcile both the
need to speedily end litigation and the parties’ right to due process.
It is true that, faced with an
appeal, the court has the discretion whether to dismiss it or not. However,
this discretion must be sound; it is to be exercised pursuant to the tenets of
justice, fair play and equity, in consideration of the circumstances obtaining
in each case. Thus, dismissal of appeals on purely technical grounds is frowned
upon as the policy of the Court is to encourage resolution of cases on their
merits over the very rigid and technical application of rules of procedure used
only to help secure, not override, substantial justice. Verily, it is far
better and more prudent for the court to excuse a technical lapse and afford
the parties a review of the case on appeal rather than dispose of it on a
technicality that would cause grave injustice to the parties.[31]
The primordial issue in this case is
whether Asistio should be excluded from the permanent list of voters of [Precinct
1811A] of
Section 117 of The Omnibus Election
Code (Batas Pambansa Bilang 881)
states:
SECTION 117. Qualifications of a voter.—Every citizen of the Philippines, not otherwise disqualified by law, eighteen years of age or over, who shall have resided in the Philippines for one year and in the city or municipality wherein he proposes to vote for at least six months immediately preceding the election, may be registered as a voter.
Any person who transfers residence to another city, municipality or country solely by reason of his occupation; profession; employment in private or public service; educational activities; work in military or naval reservations; service in the army, navy or air force; the constabulary or national police force; or confinement or detention in government institutions in accordance with law, shall be deemed not to have lost his original residence.
This provision is echoed in Section 9
of The Voters Registration Act of 1996 (Republic Act No. 8189), to wit:
SEC. 9. Who May Register.—All citizens of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law who are at least eighteen (18) years of age and who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least one (1) year and in the place wherein they propose to vote for at least six (6) months immediately preceding the election, may register as a voter.
Any person who temporarily resides in another city, municipality or country solely by reason of his occupation, profession, employment in private or public service, educational activities, work in the military or naval reservations within the Philippines, service in the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the National Police Force, or confinement or detention in government institutions in accordance with law, shall not be deemed to have lost his original residence.
Any person who, on the day of registration may not have reached the required age or period of residence but who, on the day of election shall possess such qualifications, may register as a voter.
From these provisions, the residency requirement
of a voter is at least one (1) year residence in the
Domicile is not easily lost. To
successfully effect a transfer thereof, one must demonstrate: (1) an actual
removal or change of domicile; (2) a bona
fide intention of abandoning the former place of residence and establishing
a new one; and (3) acts which correspond with that purpose.[36] There
must be animus manendi coupled with animus non revertendi. The purpose to
remain in or at the domicile of choice must be for an indefinite period of
time; the change of residence must be voluntary; and the residence at the place
chosen for the new domicile must be actual.[37]
Asistio has always been a resident of
That Asistio allegedly indicated in
his Certificate of Candidacy for Mayor, both for the 2007 and 2010 elections, a
non-existent or false address, or that he could not be physically found in the
address he indicated when he registered as a voter, should not operate to
exclude him as a voter of Caloocan City. These purported misrepresentations in Asistio’s
COC, if true, might serve as basis for an election offense under the Omnibus Election
Code (OEC),[38] or an
action to deny due course to the COC.[39]
But to our mind, they do not serve as proof that Asistio has abandoned his
domicile in
With this disquisition, we find no
necessity to discuss the other issues raised in the petition.
WHEREFORE, the
petition is GRANTED. The assailed
Order dated February 15, 2010 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 129, Caloocan
City in SCA No. 997 and the decision dated February 5, 2010 of the Metropolitan
Trial Court, Branch 52, Caloocan City in SCA No. 10-582 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Luis A. Asistio remains a registered voter of
Precinct No. 1811A, Barangay 15,
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
|
RENATO C.
CORONA Associate Justice |
|
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice
|
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
|
|
TERESITA
J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO 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
|
|
MARTIN S.
VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
JOSE Associate Justice |
JOSE
CATRAL
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I
certify that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-64.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8] The voters listed as residing in
[9] Rollo, pp. 76-78.
[10]
[11]
[12] Per the Sworn Statement of Tengco dated January 8, 2010; id. at 104-105.
[13] Rollo, pp. 111-124.
[14] Per the Manifestation of Asistio dated February 4, 2010; id. at 107-110.
[15] Rollo, pp. 125-138.
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28] Romualdez
v. RTC, Branch 7,
[29] Akbayan-Youth v. Commission on Elections, G.R. Nos. 147066 & 147179, March 26, 2001, 355 SCRA 318.
[30] Bince, Jr. v. Comelec, 312 Phil. 316 (1995).
[31] Barangay Sangalang v. Barangay Maguihan, G.R. No. 1579792, December 23, 2009, citing Ong Lim Sing, Jr. v. FEB Leasing and Finance Corporation, 524 SCRA 333, 343-344 (2007).
[32] Domino
v. COMELEC, 369 Phil. 798 (1999); Romualdez
v. RTC, Branch 7,
[33] Abella v. Commission on Elections, G.R. Nos. 100710 & 100739, September 3, 1991, 201 SCRA 253.
[34] Romualdez v. RTC, Branch 7, Tacloban City, supra note 28; Ong Huan Tin v. Republic, No. L-20997, April 27, 1967, 19 SCRA 966.
[35] Domino v. COMELEC, supra note 32; Alcantara v. Secretary of the Interior, 61 Phil. 459, 465 (1935).
[36] Romualdez-Marcos v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 119976, September 18, 1995, 248 SCRA 300, 331.
[37] Papandayan,
Jr. v. Commission on Elections, 430 Phil. 754 (2002); Romualdez v. RTC, Branch 7,
[38] See Section 74. in relation to Section 262 of the Omnibus Election Code.
[39] See
Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code. Echiverri filed with the COMELEC a
Petition for Disqualification against Asistio grounded on the latter’s previous
conviction by final judgment of an offense involving moral turpitude, and his
lack of residency in