Reyes v. Regional Trial Court of Oriental Mindoro
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioner Aquiles U. Reyes and private respondent Adolfo G. Comia were candidates for the position of Sangguniang Bayan member in Naujan, Oriental Mindoro, in the May 11, 1992 elections. Following the canvassing, petitioner was proclaimed the eighth winning candidate with 7,205 votes. Private respondent alleged errors in the vote computation, claiming he garnered 7,233 votes, which would place him ahead of petitioner. He filed an election protest to correct the perceived miscalculation by the Municipal Board of Canvassers. 2. Procedural History: Private respondent filed an election protest before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Oriental Mindoro, which denied petitioner's motion to dismiss based on the protest being filed beyond the ten-day reglementary period. The RTC subsequently rendered a decision on June 23, 1992, annulling petitioner's proclamation and declaring private respondent as the duly elected member. Petitioner appealed this decision to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). Concurrently, petitioner filed a petition for mandamus and prohibition with the Court of Appeals, seeking recognition of his position and enjoining private respondent. The Court of Appeals dismissed this petition, citing Supreme Court Circular 28-91 prohibiting multiple petitions on the same issues. The Sangguniang Bayan recognized private respondent on July 3, 1992. The COMELEC's First Division dismissed petitioner's appeal on January 22, 1993, due to the late payment of appeal fees. 3. The Petition: The present petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus seeks to annul the RTC decision and the COMELEC's dismissal of the appeal. Petitioner argues that the RTC lacked jurisdiction due to the late filing of the election protest and that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in dismissing his appeal for late payment of fees. He also contends that the COMELEC's First Division decision should not have been elevated directly to the Supreme Court without a motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC en banc, as required by the Constitution and COMELEC rules. The petition further requests a re-canvass of votes based on a subsequent joint-affidavit from the Municipal Board of Canvassers.
Issue(s)
Whether the Supreme Court can entertain a petition for certiorari from a COMELEC division decision without a prior motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC en banc. Whether the COMELEC's First Division committed a grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner's appeal for failure to pay the appeal fee within the reglementary period. Whether the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion in assuming jurisdiction over the election protest filed beyond the reglementary period. Whether a re-canvass of votes should be conducted based on a subsequent joint-affidavit of the Municipal Board of Canvassers.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of petitioner's appeal by the COMELEC and found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court or the COMELEC.
Ratio Decidendi
On the requirement of a motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC en banc: The Court held that a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court from a decision of a COMELEC division requires a prior motion for reconsideration filed before the COMELEC en banc, as mandated by Article IX, A, Section 7 of the Constitution and clarified by Article IX, C, Section 3. The Court rejected petitioner's argument that this requirement can be dispensed with because the issue is a question of law, stating that the questions raised involved interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions in light of the facts, thus not pure questions of law. Petitioner's failure to file such a motion was deemed fatal to his present action. On the dismissal of the appeal for failure to pay the appeal fee: The Court found that the COMELEC's First Division properly dismissed petitioner's appeal. Citing Section 9(a) of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure and Section 2(b) of COMELEC Resolution No. 2108-A, the Court emphasized that the appeal fee must be paid within the period for perfecting the appeal, which is five days after promulgation of the trial court's decision. Petitioner received the decision on June 26, 1992, but paid the appeal fee only on August 6, 1992, a delay of forty days. The Court dismissed petitioner's claim of erroneous advice, noting the lack of record to support it and the absence of any offer to pay within the appeal period. On the trial court's jurisdiction: The Court ruled that petitioner was estopped from assailing the trial court's jurisdiction. By filing an appeal to the COMELEC and a petition for mandamus and prohibition in the Court of Appeals, petitioner implicitly recognized the trial court's jurisdiction. Having chosen these remedies and lost, he could not subsequently file a new petition raising the same jurisdictional issue. On the prayer for re-canvass: The Court found no basis for petitioner's prayer for a re-canvass of votes. This issue was raised in an addendum to his brief before the COMELEC, and with the dismissal of that case, there was no longer a pending appeal or proceeding where such a prayer could be considered.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court from a decision of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) requires a prior motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC en banc, unless the issue is a pure question of law. Failure to pay the appeal fee within the reglementary period is a ground for dismissal of the appeal.