ROY RODILLAS, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ISABELO F. DOTIMAS AND JUDGE PEDRO L. HABON, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised
Rules of Court questioning the dismissal of petitioner’s appeal before the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) on the ground of tardiness in the payment of
the appeal fee.

Petitioner and private respondent were both candidates for Punong
Barangay in Barangay San Rafael, San Nicolas, Pangasinan in the May 9, 1994
elections. Petitioner obtained 65 votes
as against private respondent’s 61 votes.

An election protest was consequently filed by respondent with the
9th Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Tayug – San Nicolas presided by respondent
Judge.

After due hearing, the Municipal Circuit Trial Court rendered its
judgment on May 27, 1994 finding private respondent to have obtained 68 votes
as against petitioner’s 66 votes. Petitioner received a copy of the decision on May 30, 1994.

On May 31, 1994, petitioner filed a notice of appeal with the
Municipal Circuit Trial Court and paid P150.00 as appeal fees with the Regional
Trial Court, Tayug, Pangasinan.

In an order issued on the same date, the Municipal Circuit Trial
Court ordered the elevation of the records to the Regional Trial Court.

Realizing that the appeal was made to the wrong forum, petitioner
filed on June 2, 1994 an Amended Notice of Appeal with the Municipal Circuit
Trial Court.

On June 6, 1994, the Municipal Circuit Trial Court thereby issued
an Amended Order, directing the elevation of the records to the COMELEC (Rollo,
p. 32).

On June 14, 1994, the Municipal Circuit Trial Court forwarded the
records of the case to the COMELEC. At the same time, petitioner paid
with the COMELEC the amount of
P510.00.

On July 20, 1994, the First Division of the COMELEC denied the appeal for
petitioner’s belated filing of the appeal and legal research fees.

Hence, this petition.

Petitioner argues that he has initially paid the amount of
P150.00 with the Regional Trial Court and it was only just a matter of
completing the appeal fee of P510.00 for the COMELEC to take cognizance of his appeal. According to petitioner, the COMELEC committed grave abuse of
discretion in dismissing the appeal outright when the most it could have done
was to refuse to take action on the case until the fees were paid in full,
pursuant to Section 18, Rule 42 of the COMELEC
Rules and Procedure.

Petitioner’s contentions are untenable.

The procedure for perfecting an appeal from the decision of the
Municipal Trial Court in a barangay election protest case is set forth in the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, as follows:

“SEC. 3. Notice of Appeal. – Within five (5)
days after promulgation of the decision of the court, the aggrieved party may
file with said court a notice of appeal, and serve a copy thereof upon the
attorney of record of the adverse party” (Rule 22).

xxx                                                                     xxx                                                                       xxx

SEC. 3. Appeal fees. – The appellant in election cases shall pay an
appeal fee as follows:

xxx                                                                     xxx                                                                       xxx

(b) Election cases
appealed from courts of limited jurisdiction . . . . . P500.00.

In every case, a legal research fee of P20.00 shall be paid by the
appellant in accordance with Sec. 4, Republic Act No. 3870, as amended.

SEC. 4. Where and When to
pay. – The fees prescribed in Sections 1, 2, and 3 hereof shall be paid to, and
deposited with the Cash Division of the Commission within a period to file the
notice of appeal” (Rule 40).

xxx                                                                     xxx                                                                     xxx

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:

xxx                                                                     xxx                                                                     xxx

(a) Failure of the
appellant to pay the appeal fee (Rule 22).

xxx                                                                     xxx                                                                     xxx

SEC. 18. Non-payment of
prescribed fees. If the fees above
prescribed are not paid, the Commission may refuse to take action until they
are paid and dismiss the action or proceeding” (Rule 40).

The mere filing of the notice of appeal was not enough. It should be accompanied by the payment of
the correct amount of appeal fee (See Galang v. Court of Appeals, 199 SCRA 683
[1991]; Guevarra v. Court of Appeals, 157 SCRA 32 [1988]).

Petitioner had only five days from receipt of the decision of the
Municipal Circuit Trial Court or until June 5, 1994 to perfect his appeal. While he timely filed his Amended Notice of
Appeal on June 2, 1994, he paid the amount of P510.00 representing the appeal
and legal research fees only on June 14, 1994. It is, therefore, evident that petitioner belatedly paid said
amount. Besides, the correct amounts of
the appeal and the research fees are P500.00 and P20.00 respectively, or
P520.00 not P510.00 as paid by petitioner.

The payment of the full amount of the docket fee is an
indispensable step for the perfection of an appeal (Dorego v. Perez, 22 SCRA 8
[1968]; Bello v. Fernandez, 4 SCRA 135 [1962]). In both original and appellate cases, the court acquires
jurisdiction over the case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fees
as held in Acda v. Minister of Labor, 119
SCRA 306 (1982). The requirement of an
appeal fee is by no means a mere technicality of law or procedure. It is an essential requirement without which
the decision appealed from would become final and executory as if no appeal was
filed at all. The right to appeal is
merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner prescribed
by, and in accordance with the provision of the law.

While the strict application of the rule on the payment of docket
fees has been relaxed in some cases, (See cases cited in Quiason, Philippine
Courts and Their Jurisdiction 24 [1993]), the Court took cognizance of the
peculiar circumstances attendant to said cases. In Segonia v. Barrios, 75 Phil. 764 (1946),
for example, the appellant paid the incorrect fees upon the advice of the
justice of the peace and the clerk of court.

The fact that petitioner initially paid P150.00 with the Regional
Trial Court is of no moment. The
Regional Trial Court has no appellate
jurisdiction over decisions of the Municipal Trial Court in election cases
involving the barangay elections (Flores v. Commission on Elections, 184 SCRA
484 [1990]).

Petitioner cannot invoke to his aid the provision of Section 18, Rule 40 of the COMELEC Rules
and Procedure for the simple reason that under said Rule, the COMELEC is
precisely given the discretion, in a case where the prescribed fees are not
paid, to either refuse to take action on the case until the fees are paid, or
to dismiss the action or proceeding. The COMELEC, unfortunately for petitioner, chose to exercise the second
option.

The COMELEC, therefore, did not commit an abuse of discretion in
dismissing the appeal.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Feliciano, Padilla, Regalado, Davide, Jr.,
Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, and Francisco, JJ., concur.