MATEO R. NOLLEN, JR., PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND SUSANA M. CABALLES, RESPONDENTS.

Nollen versus Commission on Elections

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari filed by Mateo Nollen, Jr. against the Commission on Elections and Susana Caballes. Nollen asks the Supreme Court to nullify the order of the Commission on Elections First Division dismissing his appeal from a municipal trial court decision in a barangay election protest, and the resolution of the Commission on Elections En Banc denying his motion for reconsideration. The case matters because it fixes the rule on when an appeal in a barangay or municipal election contest is perfected, and clarifies the effect of an incomplete payment of appeal fees.

Procedural History

Caballes filed an election protest with the Municipal Trial Court of Sariaya, Quezon. The trial court decided in her favor, declaring her the punong barangay elect. Nollen filed a notice of appeal and paid the trial court an appeal fee of 1,000 pesos. When the records reached the Commission on Elections, its First Division dismissed the appeal for failure to pay the 3,000 peso appeal fee prescribed by the Commission's Rules of Procedure within the five day period. Nollen moved for reconsideration, which the Commission on Elections En Banc denied. Nollen then filed this petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.

Facts

Nollen and Caballes were candidates for punong barangay of Gibanga, Sariaya, Quezon in the October 2007 barangay elections. Nollen garnered 456 votes against the 448 votes of Caballes, and was declared the punong barangay elect.

Caballes filed an election protest with the Municipal Trial Court. In June 2008, the trial court rendered a decision declaring Caballes the punong barangay elect with 456 votes, five votes more than the 451 votes of Nollen. Nollen filed his notice of appeal and paid the trial court an appeal fee of 1,000 pesos.

When the records were elevated to the Commission on Elections, its First Division dismissed the appeal for failure to pay the 3,000 peso appeal fee within the five day reglementary period. Nollen moved for reconsideration, invoking a liberal interpretation of the rules, but the Commission on Elections En Banc denied the motion, holding that an appeal is deemed registered and docketed only upon full payment of the filing fee, and that errors in the payment of filing fees in election cases are no longer excusable. Nollen later paid 3,200 pesos to the Commission's Cash Division.

Issues

• Whether or not the Commission on Elections acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, in dismissing Nollen's appeal and denying his motion for reconsideration on the ground of incomplete payment of appeal fees.

Applicable Provisions

Section 8 of the Rules of Procedure in Election Contests Before the Courts Involving Elective Municipal and Barangay Officials provides:

An aggrieved party may appeal the decision to the Commission on Elections within five days after promulgation, by filing a notice of appeal with the court that rendered the decision.

This provision governs the filing of the notice of appeal in election contests before the municipal trial court.

Section 9 of the same Rules provides:

The appellant in an election contest shall pay to the court that rendered the decision an appeal fee of One Thousand Pesos, simultaneously with the filing of the notice of appeal.

This provision requires the payment of the 1,000 peso appeal fee to the trial court, which Nollen complied with.

Section 9 of Rule 22 of the Commission on Elections Rules of Procedure provides:

The appeal may be dismissed for failure to pay the correct appeal fee.

This provision gives the Commission the discretion to dismiss an appeal for non-payment of the correct appeal fee, but does not make dismissal automatic.

Ruling

The Court granted the petition. On the sole issue, the Court held that the Commission on Elections acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Nollen's appeal. The Court explained that the payment of the 1,000 peso appeal fee within five days from the promulgation of the trial court decision perfects the appeal. The non-payment or insufficient payment of the additional appeal fee of 3,200 pesos to the Commission does not affect the perfection of the appeal and does not result in outright or ipso facto dismissal. The Court quoted its earlier ruling:

The non-payment or the insufficient payment of the additional appeal fee of Three Thousand Two Hundred Pesos to the Commission on Elections Cash Division does not affect the perfection of the appeal and does not result in outright or ipso facto dismissal of the appeal.

The Court also noted that the Commission, in Resolution Number 8654, provided that if the appellant filed his appeal before the effectivity of Resolution Number 8486, he shall be directed to pay the additional appeal fee of 3,200 pesos within fifteen days from receipt of notice from the Commission, and only upon refusal to comply shall the appeal be dismissed. Since Nollen filed his appeal before the effectivity of Resolution Number 8486, and since he voluntarily paid the 3,200 pesos, his appeal should be given due course. The Court further held that the warning in Divinagracia versus Commission on Elections, that errors in the payment of appeal fees are no longer excusable for notices of appeal filed after its promulgation, does not apply to Nollen because his notice of appeal was filed before that decision.

Doctrine

An appeal in an election contest involving elective municipal and barangay officials is perfected upon the filing of the notice of appeal and the payment of the 1,000 peso appeal fee to the trial court within the five day reglementary period. The non-payment or insufficient payment of the additional appeal fee of 3,200 pesos to the Commission on Elections does not affect the perfection of the appeal and does not result in outright dismissal. The Commission may dismiss the appeal for failure to pay the correct appeal fee under Section 9 of Rule 22 of its Rules of Procedure, but such dismissal is discretionary, not mandatory. For appeals filed before the effectivity of Resolution Number 8486, the appellant shall be directed to pay the additional appeal fee within fifteen days from receipt of notice, and only upon refusal to comply shall the appeal be dismissed.

Disposition

The petition was granted. The order of the Commission on Elections First Division and the resolution of the Commission on Elections En Banc were reversed and set aside, and the case was remanded to the Commission on Elections for review of the trial court decision.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing: the payment of the 1,000 peso appeal fee to the trial court perfects the appeal, and the non-payment of the additional 3,200 peso fee to the Commission on Elections does not cause outright dismissal. Examiners like to use this case to test the distinction between the perfection of an appeal and the discretionary dismissal for non-payment of appeal fees in election contests.