Soller v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Ferdinand Thomas M. Soller and private respondent Angel M. Saulong were candidates for mayor of Bansud, Oriental Mindoro in the May 11, 1998 elections. Petitioner was proclaimed the winning mayor. Procedural History: Private respondent filed a "petition for annulment of the proclamation/exclusion of election return" with the COMELEC and an election protest with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro. The RTC denied petitioner's motion to dismiss the election protest, which denial was also upheld upon reconsideration. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the COMELEC, arguing that the RTC acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. The COMELEC en banc dismissed petitioner's suit, finding that the filing fee was paid, the defect in verification was a mere technicality, and there was no forum shopping. The Petition: Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to annul the COMELEC resolution, alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC en banc gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in not ordering the dismissal of private respondent's election protest. Whether the RTC acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing private respondent's election protest due to alleged failure to pay requisite filing fees. Whether the RTC acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing private respondent's election protest due to alleged insufficiency in form and substance and failure to state a cause of action. Whether the RTC acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing the election protest on the grounds of forum-shopping and failure to comply with the Supreme Court Circular requiring a truthful certification of non-forum shopping.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulled and set aside the assailed Resolution of the COMELEC, and made permanent the temporary restraining order. The RTC was ordered to dismiss election protest EC No. 31-98.
Ratio Decidendi
On the jurisdiction of the COMELEC en banc: The Court held that the COMELEC en banc does not possess the requisite authority to hear and decide election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies, in the first instance. This power is vested in the divisions of the Commission. Consequently, any decision rendered by the COMELEC en banc in such capacity is considered null and void. The petition for certiorari assailing an interlocutory order of the RTC concerning an election protest falls within the jurisdiction of a COMELEC division, not the en banc. Therefore, the COMELEC en banc acted without jurisdiction in taking cognizance of petitioner's petition in the first instance. On the payment of filing fees: The Court found that private respondent failed to pay the prescribed P300.00 filing fee for his election protest as required by the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. While other fees were paid, only P32.00 could be considered as the filing fee. The Court reiterated its rulings in Pahilan, Gatchalian, and Loyola, emphasizing that errors in the payment of filing fees in election cases are no longer excusable and that substantial compliance is not sufficient when the full amount has not been paid. The RTC, therefore, did not acquire jurisdiction over the election protest due to the deficiency in the filing fee, and the COMELEC erred in not ordering its dismissal on this ground. On the sufficiency of the petition and cause of action: Although not directly ruled upon due to the jurisdictional and filing fee issues, the Court noted that the verification of the protest was defective as it failed to state that the contents were true and correct of private respondent's personal knowledge. This defect, under Section 4, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, would render the petition an unsigned pleading, subject to dismissal. On forum shopping and certification against non-forum shopping: The Court found that private respondent failed to comply with the required certification against forum shopping. He filed a petition for annulment of proclamation/exclusion of election returns prior to filing the election protest but did not disclose this fact in his protest. The Court clarified that the mandatory requirement of a certificate of non-forum shopping applies regardless of whether actual forum shopping occurred, and non-disclosure cannot be excused by the party's belief that they did not violate the rule.
Main Doctrine
The COMELEC en banc does not have the requisite authority to hear and decide election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies, in the first instance; such power pertains to the divisions of the Commission. Any decision by the Commission en banc in such cases is null and void. Furthermore, failure to pay the correct and full filing fees in election cases, after specific pronouncements by the Court, is no longer excusable and warrants dismissal.