DIVINAGRACIA, JR. - v - COMELEC, CENTENA
EN BANC, G.R. Nos. 186007 & 186016, July
27, 2009, CARPIO MORALES, J.
Doctrine: The Court NOW DECLARES,
for the guidance of the Bench and Bar, that for notices 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.
Facts:
Salvador Divinagracia, Jr. (petitioner) and Alex Centena (private
respondent) vied for the vice-mayoralty race in Calinog, Iloilo during
the May 14, 2007 Elections wherein petitioner garnered 13 votes more than the
votes received by respondent.
After the proclamation of petitioner as the duly elected
vice-mayor, private respondent filed with the RTC Iloilo City an election protest, claiming that
irregularities attended the appreciation of marked ballots in seven precincts.
RTC dismissed private respondents protest - private respondent failed to
overcome the disputable presumption of regularity in the conduct of
elections since no challenge of
votes or objection to the appreciation of ballots was raised before the Board
of Elections Inspectors or the Municipal Board of Canvassers.
Private respondent and petitioner filed their respective notices
of appeal before the trial court. The Comelec consolidated the appeals of the
parties. Meanwhile, the duly elected mayor of Calinog, Teodoro Lao,
died. On even date, petitioner assumed office as mayor. Comelec Second Division
issued its first assailed resolution declaring private respondent as the duly
elected vice mayor - Comelec Second Division found the same to
be fatally defective in form for non-observance of the prescribed
rules as it failed to indicate the specific markings in the contested
ballots and merely discussed in a general manner the reasons why those ballots
should not be declared as marked.
Petitioner filed a Verified Motion
for Reconsideration, alleging, inter alia, that both parties failed to pay the appeal fee/s
under Section 3, Rule 40 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure, and following
Section 9, Rule 22 of the same Rules, an appeal may be dismissed motu
proprio or upon motion on the ground of failure of the appellant to
pay the correct appeal fee. The Comelec En Banc issued
its second assailed Resolution affirmingthe pronouncements of the Second Division
- petitioner was barred under the doctrine of estoppel by laches when he
failed to raise the question of jurisdiction when he filed his Appellants and
Appellees Briefs.
Hence, the present petition for certiorari and prohibition.
Issue: Whether or not payment of the appeal fee is a mandatory and
jurisdictional requirement.
Held: Yes. The jurisprudence on payment of filing fees in election
cases metamorphosed in the 1997 case of Loyola v. Comelec. The
Court in Loyola warned that the cases cited
therein would no longer provide any excuse for such shortcoming and would now
bar any claim of good faith, excusable negligence or mistake in any failure to pay the full amount of filing
fees in election cases which may be filed after the promulgation of the
decision in said case.
On May 15, 2007, the Court, by A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC,
introduced the Rules of Procedure in Election Contests before the Courts
involving Elective Municipal and Barangay Officials:
·
superseded Rules 35 and
36 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure governing elections protests and quo
warranto cases before the trial courts. Not only was the amount
of the filing fee increased from P300
to P3,000 for each interest; the amount of filing fee was determined
by the Court, not by the Comelec.
·
imposition of an appeal fee under
Section 9 of Rule 14 thereof, separate and distinct from, but payable
within the same period as, the appeal fee imposed by the Comelec under
Sections 3 and 4, Rule 40 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure, as amended by
Comelec Resolution No. 02-0130.
Contrary to respondent’s contention, the Comelec-prescribed appeal
fee was not superseded by A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC. The requirement of these two appeal fees
by two different jurisdictions had caused confusion in the implementation by
the Comelec of its procedural rules on payment of appeal fees for the
perfection of appeals, prompting the Comelec to issue Resolution No.
8486 (July 15, 2008) clarifying 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;
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.
That Comelec Resolution No. 8486 took
effect on July 24, 2008 or after a party had filed a notice of appeal, as in
the case of petitioner, does not exempt it from paying the Comelec-prescribed
appeal fees. The Comelec merely clarified the existing rules
on the payment of such appeal fees, and allowed the payment thereof
within 15 days from filing the notice of appeal.
The Court NOW
DECLARES, for the guidance of the Bench and Bar, that for notices 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.
On the Comelec’s application of the
doctrine of estoppel by laches, records show that petitioner raised the issue
of lack of jurisdiction for his and private respondents non-payment of the
appeal fee only after the Comelec appreciated the contested ballots and ruled
in favor of respondent, an issue which could have been raised with reasonable
diligence at the earliest opportunity. The doctrine of estoppel by laches
is not new in election cases. To allow petitioner to espouse his stale
defense at such late stage of the proceedings would run afoul of the basic
tenets of fairness.
Unlike appellate proceedings before the Comelec, a motion for
reconsideration of a trial courts decision in an election protest is a
prohibited pleading, which explains why stale claims of non-payment
of filing fees have always been raised belatedly before
the appellate tribunal. In appellate proceedings before the Comelec, the
stage to belatedly raise a stale claim of non-payment of appeal
fees to subvert an adverse decision is a motion for
reconsideration. The Commission thus did not gravely abuse its discretion
when it did not countenance the glaring inequity presented by such situation.
Petitioner, guilty as he is of the same act that he assails,
stands on equal footing with private respondent, for he himself admittedly did
not pay the appeal fee, yet the Comelec similarly adjudicated his appeal on the
merits, the resolution of which he glaringly does not assail in the present
petition. He who comes to court must come with clean hands.
Note: I made this case digest when I was still a law student. The ones posted on my blog were not due for submission as part of any academic requirement. I want to remind you that there is no substitute to reading the full text of the case! Use at your own risk.
Note: I made this case digest when I was still a law student. The ones posted on my blog were not due for submission as part of any academic requirement. I want to remind you that there is no substitute to reading the full text of the case! Use at your own risk.