Duco v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Simultaneous barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) elections were held on October 29, 2007. Petitioner Ricardo C. Duco was proclaimed Punong Barangay of Barangay Ibabao, Loay, Bohol. His opponent, Narciso B. Avelino, filed an election protest alleging spurious and fraudulent election results. The Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) ruled in favor of Avelino, declaring him the duly elected Punong Barangay. Procedural History: Duco filed a notice of appeal on January 25, 2008, and paid P1,400.00 as appeal fees. On April 30, 2008, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), First Division, dismissed his appeal for failure to perfect it due to non-payment of the correct appeal fee (P3,000.00) as prescribed by COMELEC Rules of Procedure and COMELEC Resolution No. 02-0130. Duco's motion for reconsideration was denied on May 22, 2008, for failure to pay motion fees. The Petition: Duco assailed the dismissal of his appeal and the denial of his motion for reconsideration, averring that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion by strictly applying its Rules of Procedure.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in strictly applying its Rules of Procedure regarding the perfection of appeal and payment of appeal fees. Whether the COMELEC First Division gravely abused its discretion in resolving the motion for reconsideration when such matter should have been decided by the COMELEC en banc.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is dismissed for lack of merit. The resolution denying the motion for reconsideration is set aside for being contrary to the Constitution and COMELEC Rules of Procedure, but the dismissal of the appeal is upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the dismissal of the appeal and the plea for liberal application of rules: The Court found that the dismissal of Duco's appeal was proper and in accordance with the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. The petitioner failed to pay the correct appeal fee of P3,000.00 as mandated by Section 3, Rule 40 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, as amended by COMELEC Resolution No. 02-0130. He only paid P1,400.00, which was deficient by P1,800.00. Furthermore, the appeal fee was paid to the MCTC cashier, contrary to Section 4, Rule 40 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, which requires payment to the COMELEC Cash Division. The payment of the deficiency beyond the five-day reglementary period did not cure the defect, as the date of payment of the appeal fee is deemed the actual date of filing the notice of appeal. Thus, his appeal was considered filed beyond the reglementary period, rendering the MCTC decision final and immutable. The Court rejected the petitioner's plea for liberal application of procedural rules in favor of substantial justice. Citing previous jurisprudence, particularly Loyola v. COMELEC, the Court reiterated that claims of good faith, excusable negligence, or mistake in failing to pay the full amount of filing fees in election cases are no longer excusable. The payment of the full amount of the docket fee within the period to appeal is a sine qua non requirement for the perfection of an appeal, and non-compliance constitutes a jurisdictional defect that warrants dismissal. The Court emphasized that appeal is a statutory privilege, not a right, and must be exercised strictly in accordance with law. On the issue of the COMELEC First Division resolving the motion for reconsideration: The Court held that the COMELEC First Division gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in resolving the motion for reconsideration. Section 3, Article IX-C of the Constitution mandates that motions for reconsideration of decisions must be decided by the Commission en banc. The COMELEC Rules of Procedure (Sections 5 and 6, Rule 19) outline the proper procedure, requiring the Clerk of Court to notify the Presiding Commissioner, who then certifies the case to the Commission en banc for calendaring and resolution. These steps were not followed, rendering the resolution of May 22, 2008, void.
Main Doctrine
The strict application of procedural rules, particularly regarding the payment of appeal fees within the reglementary period, is upheld in election cases, as failure to comply constitutes a jurisdictional defect that renders the appeal dismissible. Liberal application of rules is not favored when it comes to perfecting appeals, especially concerning filing fees, as such payment is a sine qua non requirement.