Republic of the
SUPREME COURT
EN BANC
MATEO
R. NOLLEN, JR., Petitioner, - versus - COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
and SUSANA M. CABALLES, Respondents. |
|
G.R. No. 187635 Present: PUNO, C.J., CARPIO, CARPIO
MORALES, VELASCO,
JR., NACHURA, LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, BRION, PERALTA, BERSAMIN,
ABAD,
and VILLARAMA, JR., JJ. Promulgated: January
11, 2009 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
VELASCO, JR., J.:
The Case
In
this petition for certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65, Mateo R.
Nollen, Jr. assails and seeks to nullify the Order[1]
dated September 22, 2008 of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) First
Division in EAC BRGY 360-2008 and the Resolution[2]
of April 2, 2009 of the COMELEC En Banc
denying his motion for reconsideration.
The Facts
Respondent
Susana M. Caballes and petitioner Mateo R. Nollen, Jr. were candidates for punong
barangay of Gibanga, Sariaya, Quezon
in the October 29, 2007 barangay
elections. Having garnered four hundred
and fifty-six (456) votes as against the four hundred and forty-eight (448)
votes Caballes obtained, Nollen was declared as the punong barangay-elect.
Dissatisfied with the result, Caballes
instituted an election protest with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) in Sariaya,
Quezon. On June 3, 2008, the MTC
rendered a decision declaring protestant Caballes as punong barangay-elect,
having garnered four hundred fifty-six (456) votes, or five (5) votes more than
the four hundred fifty-one (451) votes of Nollen.
Unable, as to be expected, to admit
defeat, Nollen filed on June 5, 2008 his notice of appeal and paid the MTC the
appeal fee of PhP 1,000.
Following the elevation of the MTC’s records
to the COMELEC, the First Division of the COMELEC, by Order of September 22,
2008 in EAC BRGY 360-2008, dismissed Nollen’s appeal for his failure to pay the
appeal fee of PhP 3,000 prescribed by Sections 3 and 4, Rule 40 of the COMELEC
Rules of Procedure within the reglementary period of five (5) days.
From the above order, Nollen moved for
reconsideration, praying for the liberal interpretation of the rules, but
stating in the same breath that his PhP 1,000 appeal fee payment was sufficient
to perfect his appeal.[3] To still require him to pay the additional
amount of PhP 3,000 as appeal fee and a bailiff fee of PhP 200 on top of what
he already paid the MTC, would amount, so he claimed, to a denial of his right
to due process. On October 6, 2008,
Nollen, despite his earlier avowal to pay his deficiency only if the COMELEC En Banc would reconsider the dismissal order of the First Division,
paid the poll body’s Cash Division the amount of PhP 3,200.
Ruling of the COMELEC En Banc
By Resolution[4]
dated April 2, 2009, the COMELEC En Banc denied Nollen’s motion for
reconsideration on the rationalization that, while he timely filed his notice
of appeal and simultaneously paid the PhP 1,000 appeal fee with the MTC on June
5, 2008, the appeal would be deemed duly registered and docketed only upon full
payment of the filing fee to the COMELEC.
By its ruling, the COMELEC En Banc
evidently had in mind Zamoras v. COMELEC,[5]
among other cases.[6] And citing jurisprudence, the COMELEC held
that the error in the payment of filing fees in election cases is no longer
excusable.[7]
The Issue
Hence, this recourse on the singular issue
of whether or not the COMELEC––in first dismissing Nollen’s appeal from the MTC
and then denying his motion for
reconsideration––acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave
abuse of discretion, amounting to lack, or in excess, of jurisdiction.
The Court’s Ruling
The petition is meritorious.
Pending resolution of this petition,
several relevant incidents transpired bearing on the payment of the appeal fees
imposed by different rules in election cases. Payment of appeal fees in appealed election
protest cases is now separately required by the Rules of Court and Sec. 3, Rule
40 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, as amended by Resolution No. 02-0130, Series
of 2002, a situation not obtaining previously. The Court, thus, deems it right
to put things in proper perspective.
As may be recalled, the Court, in Miranda
v. Castillo,[8]
held that in election protest cases, the incomplete payment of the filing fee
required by the COMELEC Rules is correctible by the payment of the deficiency.
Earlier, the Court did not dismiss an election protest case for incomplete
payment of the COMELEC-imposed filing fee arising from incorrect assessment by
the clerk of court.[9] Then came Zamoras,[10]
a 2004 case in which the petitioner failed to fully pay the COMELEC-prescribed
appeal fee of PhP 3,200 exacted under COMELEC Resolution No. 02-0130, Series of
2002. There, the Court held, “The
subsequent payment of the filing fee [two months after Zamoras received a copy
of the MTC’s decision] x x x did not relieve Zamoras of his mistake. A case is not deemed registered and docketed
until full payment of the filing fee. Otherwise
stated, the date of the payment of the filing fee is deemed the actual date of
the filing.”
On May 15, 2007, the Court issued A.M.
No. 07-4-15-SC providing the “Rules of Procedure in Election Contests Before
the Courts Involving Elective Municipal and Barangay Officials.” Among
other things, it required the payment of a PhP 1,000 appeal fee upon the filing
of a notice of appeal. Secs. 8 and 9 of
A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC provide:
SEC. 8. Appeal.––An aggrieved party
may appeal the decision to the [COMELEC] within five (5) days after
promulgation, by filing a notice of appeal with the court that rendered the
decision x x x.
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 (PhP 1,000), simultaneously with the filing of the
notice of appeal.
In a bid to untangle the confusion in
the implementation of its procedural rules engendered by the requirement of
appeal fees separately assessed under the Rules of Court and its Rules of
Procedures, the COMELEC issued on July 15, 2008 Resolution No. 8486, providing as follows:
1. That if the appellant had already
paid the amount of PhP 1,000 before the Regional Trial Court, x x x [MTC] x x x
within the five-day period, pursuant to Section 9, Rule 14 of the Rules of
Procedure on Election Contests Before the Court Involving Elective Municipal
and Barangay Officials (Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 07-4-15) and his
Appeal is given due course by the Court, said
appellant is required to pay the COMELEC appeal fee of P3,200.00 x x x within a
period of fifteen (15) days from the time of 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.
SEC. 9 Grounds for Dismissal of
Appeal. The appeal may be dismissed x x x (a) for failure to pay the correct
appeal fee x x x.
2.
That if the appellant failed to pay the PhP 1,000-appeal fee with the
lower court within the five-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. x x x (Emphasis added.)
On June 30, 2009, the Court, in Aguilar
v. COMELEC,[11]
pronounced aptly:
It should be noted from the
aforequoted sections [8 and 9] of the Rule that the appeal fee of PhP 1,000 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 PhP 1,000-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 x x x COMELEC
within 15 days. x x x
x
x x 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 PhP 3,200 to the COMELEC Cash
Division within the period to appeal [five (5) days from notice of the trial
court’s decision], as stated in the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, as amended, no
longer applies.
The non-payment or the insufficient
payment of the additional appeal fee of PhP 3,200 to the COMELEC Cash Division
x x x 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.
The Court takes judicial notice that the
COMELEC, in light of, and expressly adverting to, Aguilar, promulgated on August 4, 2009 Resolution No. 8654.[12] With regard
to the determination of the sufficiency and timely payment of the appeal fees
as requisite for the perfection of appeals, the Resolution provides:
WHEREFORE, in view of the
foregoing, the Commission hereby RESOLVES to consider and adopt the following
guidelines on (a) the payment of appeal fees and (b) the disposition of motions
for reconsideration; to wit:
1.
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 PhP 1,000-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 PhP 3,200 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.
2.
If
the appellant filed his appeal before the effectivity of COMELEC Resolution No.
8486, the appellant shall be directed to pay the additional appeal fee of PhP 3,200
within fifteen (15) days from receipt
of notice from the
Commission, in accordance with Resolution No. 8486. If the latter should refuse to comply, then,
and only then shall the appeal be dismissed. (Emphasis supplied.)
As Aguilar stated and COMELEC
Resolution No. 8654 reiterated, the payment of the PhP 1,000 appeal fee within
five days from the promulgation of the Regional Trial Court or MTC decision
technically “perfects” the appeal from the trial court’s decision. Such appeal is not dismissible as a matter of
course on account alone of the inadequate payment or nonpayment of the filing
fee of PhP 3,200. The legal situation,
however, changes if the appellant, in the words of Resolution No. 8654, fails,
as directed, to pay the amount within 15 days from receipt of notice from the
COMELEC. In the instant case, albeit
Nollen paid the PhP 3,200 only in October 2008, or long after his receipt of
the June 2008 MTC decision, his appeal may validly be viewed as not fatally
belated. COMELEC Resolution No. 8654 is applicable to his appeal, as the appeal
was on June 5, 2008, or prior to July 24, 2008 when the more stringent
Resolution No. 8486 took effect.
For the sake of laying down clearly the
rules regarding the payment of the appeal fee, a discussion of the application
of the recent Divinagracia v. COMELEC[13]
to election contests involving elective municipal and barangay officials is necessary.
Divinagracia explained the purpose of Resolution No. 8486 which,
as earlier stated, the COMELEC issued to clarify existing rules and address the
resulting confusion caused by the two appeal fees required, for the perfection
of appeals, by the two different jurisdictions: the court and COMELEC. Divinagracia stressed that if the
appellants had already paid the amount of PhP 1,000 to the lower courts within
the five-day reglementary period,[14]
they are further required to pay the COMELEC, through its Cash Division, the
appeal fee of PhP 3,200 within fifteen (15) days from the time of the filing of
the notice of appeal with the lower court.
If the appellants failed to pay the PhP 3,200 within the prescribed
period, then the appeal should be dismissed.[15]
The Court went on to state in Divinagracia that Aguilar[16]
did not “dilute the force of COMELEC Resolution No. 8486 on the matter of
compliance with the COMELEC-required appeal fees.”[17]
The resolution, to reiterate, was mainly issued to clarify the confusion caused
by the requirement of payment of two appeal fees.
Divinagracia, however, contained the following final
caveat: that “for notice of appeal filed after the promulgation of this decision, errors in the matter of non-payment or
incomplete payment of the two appeal fees in election cases are no longer
excusable.”[18]
It cannot be overemphasized, however, that the
warning given in Divinagracia is inapplicable to the case at bar, since
the notice of appeal in the instant case was filed on June 5, 2008. In the
strict legal viewpoint, Divinagracia contextually finds applicability
only in cases where notices of appeal were filed at least after the
promulgation of the Divinagracia decision on July 27, 2009. Since
petitioner paid the appeal fee of PhP 1,000 simultaneously with his filing of
his notice of appeal on June 5, 2008, the appeal is considered perfected pursuant
to COMELEC Resolution No. 8654, taking it beyond the ambit of Divinagracia. Again, petitioner’s failure to pay the
remaining PhP 3,200 within the prescribed period cannot be taken against him,
since the COMELEC failed to notify him
regarding the additional appeal fee, as provided by Resolution No. 8654. Although Nollen, following superseded
jurisprudence, failed to pay the filing fee on time, he nonetheless voluntarily
paid the remaining PhP 3,200 appeal fee on October 6, 2008. We, thus, credit him for remitting the amount
of PhP 3,200, which, applying extant rules and prevailing jurisprudence, cannot
be considered as having been belatedly paid.
Hence, his petition should be given due course.
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is hereby GRANTED. The Order of the COMELEC First Division dated
September 22, 2008 and the Resolution of the COMELEC En Banc dated April 2, 2009 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The case is REMANDED to the COMELEC for its review of the assailed June
3, 2008 MTC decision.
SO ORDERED.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
ANTONIO T. CARPIO RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES ANTONIO EDUARDO B.
NACHURA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
TERESITA
J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice Associate Justice
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA LUCAS
P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice Associate Justice
MARIANO C.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, it is hereby certified 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.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, p. 27.
[2]
[4] Penned by Commissioner Leonardo L. Leonida and concurred in by Chairperson Jose A.R. Melo and Commissioners Elias R. Yusoph, Armando C. Velasco, Lucenito N. Tagle, Nicodemo T. Ferrer, and Rene V. Sarmiento.
[7] Villota v. COMELEC, 415 Phil. 87 (2001); Soller v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 139853, September 5, 2000, 339 SCRA 685; Miranda v. Castillo, G.R. No. 126361, June 19, 1997, 274 SCRA 503; Loyola v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 124137, March 25, 1997, 270 SCRA 404.
[12] Took effect on the seventh day following its publication in two newspapers of general circulation, and published in the August 7, 2009 issue of the Daily Star.