Facts:
In the May 10, 2010 Automated National and Local Elections, Bienvenido William D. Lloren and Rogelio Pua, Jr. were candidates for Vice-Mayor of the Municipality of Inopacan, Leyte. The Municipal Board of Canvassers declared Pua the winner, securing 5,682 votes over Lloren’s 4,930 votes, with a plurality of 752 votes.
Lloren contested the election results by filing Election Protest Case No. H-026 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Hilongos, Leyte, alleging massive vote-buying, intimidation, defective PCOS machines, and other election manipulations. Pua countered, claiming the election protest lacked cause of action, was inadequate in form and content, and asserted that Lloren had failed to make the necessary cash deposit for the protest.
On November 12, 2012, the RTC dismissed Lloren’s election protest due to insufficiency in form and substance and for his failure to pay the requisite cash deposit. Lloren subsequently filed a notice of appeal in the RTC on November 17, 2010, simultaneously paying an appeal fee of P1,000.00. The RTC authorized the appeal on November 24, 2010. On December 2, 2010, Lloren remitted an appeal fee of P3,200.00 to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Electoral Contests Adjudication Department (ECAD) via postal money order.
However, on January 31, 2011, the COMELEC First Division dismissed his appeal, citing Lloren’s failure to pay the appeal fee within the designated period under Section 4, Rule 40 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. Lloren filed a motion for reconsideration on February 14, 2011, indicating that he paid a P300.00 motion fee on March 3, 2011 by postal money order.
The COMELEC En Banc denied the motion for reconsideration on March 16, 2011, citing that Lloren did not pay the motion fee on time. Lloren subsequently filed a special civil action for certiorari to annul the orders of the COMELEC.
Issues:
1. Did the COMELEC commit grave abuse of discretion in determining whether Lloren timely paid the appeal and motion fees under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure?
2. Could Lloren’s appeal proceed substantively on the merit of his election protest despite procedural dismissals?
Court’s Decision:
1. Procedural Question:
The Supreme Court found merit in Lloren’s procedural contention. The rules required two separate appeal fees: one to the trial court with the notice of appeal and a second payment to the COMELEC Cash Division. Despite confusion from overlapping rules, the COMELEC extended the period to fifteen days from the notice of appeal filing for the second fee. Lloren complied by paying within this timeframe, as resolved in Resolution No. 8486. COMELEC’s decision failed by disregarding these clarifications, making its dismissal void. Moreover, the Supreme Court found that COMELEC En Banc capriciously denied the motion for reconsideration without giving reasonable opportunity for Lloren to comply with payment.
2. Substantive Question:
The Supreme Court upheld the RTC’s dismissal of Lloren’s election protest. The protest was non-compliant according to Rule 2, Section 10 of the Rules in A.M. No. 10-4-1-SC; missing crucial content elements necessary for a valid protest. Additionally, failing the timely cash deposit further validated the RTC’s dismissal.
Doctrine:
1. Payment of Fees: Appeals in election cases require dual fee payments—initially to the trial court and then to COMELEC within distinct periods. COMELEC Resolution No. 8486 clarifies the timings.
2. Review Standard: Procedural dismissals in election protests may warrant certiorari only where capricious or arbitrary decisions were made. However, compliance with procedural rules remains stringent.
Class Notes:
Key Elements:
– **Election appeal fees**: Must be paid within specified periods to both the trial court and COMELEC.
– **Procedural sufficiency**: The precise form and content in election protests are critical; discrepancies can mandate dismissal.
Statutes:
– Section 4, Rule 40; Sections 8, 9, and 10 of Rule 14, and Section 18, Rule 40 of COMELEC Rules of Procedure.
Application:
– Appeals require simultaneous fee payments; discretion versus mandatoriness in dismissal due to procedural non-compliance.
Historical Background:
The case delves into the complexities and overlaps between the procedural rules set by the RTC and COMELEC in the context of election protests in the Philippines. The rules necessitating dual fee payments were aimed at precision in the handling of electoral disputes but often led to confusion, necessitating clarifications like Resolution No. 8486. The decision highlights the judiciary’s attempts to balance stringent procedural adherence with acknowledgment of substantive rights in election contests.
Leave a Reply