Villagracia v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Felomino Villagracia was proclaimed the winning candidate for Punong Barangay in Barangay Caawigan, Talisay, Camarines Norte, following the July 15, 2002 barangay elections. His proclamation was based on a six-vote margin over his opponent, Renato V. Dela Punta. 2. Procedural History: Private respondent Dela Punta filed an election protest with the Municipal Trial Court of Talisay, Camarines Norte. After a revision of ballots, the trial court invalidated thirty-four ballots, all of which were deducted from petitioner Villagracia's votes. Consequently, the trial court declared Dela Punta the winner by a margin of 26 votes and nullified Villagracia's proclamation. Villagracia appealed to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), First Division, raising for the first time the issue of the trial court's jurisdiction due to alleged non-payment of correct filing fees. The First Division initially set aside the trial court's decision and dismissed the protest for lack of jurisdiction. However, upon motion for reconsideration, the COMELEC En Banc, in a Resolution dated June 1, 2005, granted the motion, reinstated the trial court's decision, and ordered Villagracia to vacate his post. 3. The Petition: Petitioner Villagracia filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court, seeking to annul the COMELEC En Banc's Resolution. He argued that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion by not applying the Soller doctrine, which would have upheld the First Division's ruling on lack of jurisdiction due to insufficient filing fees. Additionally, Villagracia contended that the COMELEC erred in concluding that certain words ("Joker," "Queen," "Alas," and "Kamatis") written on multiple ballots constituted marked ballots, arguing these marks did not identify the voter. The petition also included an urgent prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order.
Issue(s)
Whether the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in not applying the Soller doctrine in the instant case. Whether the COMELEC erred in concluding that the use of the words "JOKER", "QUEEN", "ALAS", and "KAMATIS", in more than one ballot would constitute marked ballots.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED for being moot. The questioned Resolution of the COMELEC En Banc dated June 1, 2005 in EAC No. 1-2004 is AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction and the application of the Soller doctrine: The Supreme Court disagreed with the petitioner's contention that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion. The Court distinguished the present case from Soller v. COMELEC, emphasizing that in Soller, the issue of jurisdiction was raised promptly, whereas in this case, the petitioner actively participated in the proceedings before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) and only raised the issue of jurisdiction on appeal after an adverse decision was rendered. The Court reiterated the principle established in Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, et al., that a party who has affirmed and invoked the jurisdiction of a court to secure an affirmative relief cannot later deny that same jurisdiction to escape a penalty. Therefore, the petitioner was estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the MTC belatedly. The COMELEC First Division erred in indiscriminately applying Soller without considering the petitioner's active participation and submission to the trial court's jurisdiction. The COMELEC En Banc correctly applied the doctrine of estoppel against the petitioner. On the issue of marked ballots: The Supreme Court affirmed the COMELEC's conclusion that the ballots bearing the words "Joker," "Alas," "Queen," and "Kamatis" were indeed marked ballots. The Court clarified that it is not necessary for the marks to specifically identify a particular voter; rather, the marks must be deliberately placed by the voter with the intention of identifying the ballot thereafter. The Court noted that these marks were consistently written in the same slot (number 7) and appeared only in ballots where the Punong Barangay voted was Jun Villagracia (the petitioner). This uniformity and placement indicated an intention to identify the ballots, thus invalidating them. The Court also emphasized that findings of fact of the COMELEC, when supported by substantial evidence, are final and non-reviewable in a certiorari proceeding under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court, and there was no reason to depart from this rule in this case.
Main Doctrine
A party who actively participated in the proceedings and voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court is estopped from questioning the court's jurisdiction for the first time on appeal, even if there was an initial deficiency in the payment of filing fees.