Olanolan v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Robert E. Olanolan and private respondent Celso A. Tizon were candidates for punong barangay of Barangay 76-A, Bucana, Davao City in the July 15, 2002 elections. Olanolan was proclaimed winner by a margin of ten (10) votes. Procedural History: Tizon filed an election protest before the MTCC, alleging anomalies. The MTCC constituted a revision committee which noted that ballots from Precincts No. 598-A and 608-A lacked COMELEC watermarks and security features. The BEI chairman of Precinct No. 598-A admitted taking the election paraphernalia home the night before the election. The MTCC dismissed Tizon's protest, ruling that ballots without COMELEC watermarks are valid if they bear other authenticating marks like the BEI chairman's initials, and that Tizon failed to prove the alleged anomaly. Tizon appealed to the COMELEC. The Petition: The COMELEC Second Division reversed the MTCC decision, declaring Tizon the duly elected punong barangay. Olanolan filed a Motion for Reconsideration (MR) with the COMELEC Second Division, but failed to pay the required motion fee and submit the correct number of copies. The Second Division elevated the MR to the COMELEC en banc. The COMELEC en banc denied Olanolan's MR for non-compliance with procedural requirements and declared the March 31, 2004 Resolution final and executory. Subsequently, a writ of execution was issued. Olanolan filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with the Supreme Court, assailing the COMELEC en banc's denial of his MR and the declaration of finality.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion in denying Olanolan's motion for reconsideration for non-payment of legal fees and failure to submit the required number of copies. Whether the COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring the March 31, 2004 Resolution final and executory.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The status quo ante order issued by the Supreme Court on November 9, 2004, is RECALLED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the denial of the motion for reconsideration: The Court held that the COMELEC en banc did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying Olanolan's motion for reconsideration. The COMELEC Rules of Procedure clearly require the payment of legal fees for filing a motion for reconsideration and the submission of ten (10) legible copies of every pleading, motion, and other paper. Section 18 of Rule 40 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure explicitly grants the COMELEC the discretion to refuse to take action until fees are paid or to dismiss the action or proceeding. In this case, the COMELEC chose to exercise the latter option, which is within its prerogative. The Court reiterated that failure to comply with these procedural requirements renders the motion invalid and the assailed resolution final and executory. On the declaration of finality and executory nature of the resolution: Consequently, since the motion for reconsideration was deemed not validly filed due to non-compliance with procedural rules, the Resolution of the COMELEC Second Division dated March 31, 2004, became final and executory after the lapse of fifteen (15) days from its promulgation, as provided by Section 13(c) of Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the COMELEC en banc's order declaring the resolution final and executory and subsequently directing the issuance of an entry of judgment and a writ of execution. The petition for certiorari is limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction and cannot be used to correct errors of judgment.
Main Doctrine
Failure to pay the required motion fee and submit the requisite number of copies for a motion for reconsideration renders the motion invalid and the assailed resolution final and executory, as the COMELEC has the discretion to dismiss the action or proceeding for non-payment of prescribed fees.