Aguilar v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In the October 2007 barangay elections, Jerry B. Aguilar was declared the winner for the chairmanship of Brgy. Bansarvil 1, Kapatagan, Lanao del Norte, by a single vote over private respondent Romulo R. Insoy. Insoy contested the election results by filing an election protest with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Kapatagan. The MTC, after a revision of votes, found Insoy to have garnered 265 votes compared to Aguilar's 264, nullified Aguilar's proclamation, and ordered him to vacate the office. Procedural History: Aggrieved by the MTC's decision, Aguilar filed a notice of appeal and paid the required P1,000.00 appeal fee to the MTC, adhering to the newly promulgated A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC. Upon elevation of the records to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), the First Division issued an order dismissing Aguilar's appeal, citing non-payment of the P3,000.00 appeal fee as prescribed by the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. Aguilar's motion for reconsideration was denied by the COMELEC First Division for failure to pay the P700.00 motion fee. A subsequent motion for reconsideration, arguing that the order was void for being issued by a division instead of the en banc, was also denied by the First Division, which then ordered the entry of judgment. This petition for certiorari followed. The Petition: Petitioner Jerry B. Aguilar assails the COMELEC First Division's orders dated July 31, September 4, and October 6, 2008, and the subsequent entry of judgment. He argues that the COMELEC First Division gravely abused its discretion by issuing orders that should have been resolved by the COMELEC en banc, in violation of the Constitution and COMELEC Rules of Procedure. Furthermore, he contends that his appeal was perfected upon payment of the P1,000.00 fee to the MTC, and the COMELEC's subsequent dismissal based on a newly issued clarificatory resolution (Resolution No. 8486) was premature and unjust, especially given the narrow margin of victory and the public interest involved in election cases. The petition seeks to annul the COMELEC's issuances and remand the case for proper disposition.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC First Division gravely abused its discretion in issuing the September 4 and October 6, 2008 Orders, which resolved motions for reconsideration of a final order. Whether the appeal filed by petitioner Aguilar was properly dismissed for non-payment of the correct appeal fee.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The July 31, September 4 and October 6, 2008 Orders and the October 16, 2008 Entry of Judgment issued by the COMELEC First Division are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The case is REMANDED to the COMELEC First Division for disposition in accordance with the Decision.
Ratio Decidendi
On the COMELEC First Division's authority to resolve motions for reconsideration: The Court held that the COMELEC First Division gravely abused its discretion in issuing the September 4 and October 6, 2008 Orders. The Constitution, specifically Article IX-C, Section 3, mandates that motions for reconsideration of decisions of a COMELEC division must be decided by the COMELEC en banc. The COMELEC Rules of Procedure, particularly Rule 19, Sections 5 and 6, further detail this procedure, requiring the Clerk of Court to certify such motions to the Commission en banc within two days. In this case, the COMELEC First Division, after dismissing Aguilar's appeal, arrogated unto itself the en banc's function of resolving the motion for reconsideration. This violation of a constitutionally mandated procedure renders the assailed orders null and void, constituting grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The Court noted that this rule applies even if the motion fee was not paid, as the COMELEC has discretion to refuse action or dismiss the case until fees are paid, but this discretion lies with the en banc, not a division. On the propriety of the appeal's dismissal: The Court found that the COMELEC First Division gravely abused its discretion in dismissing Aguilar's appeal. Under A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC, an appeal is perfected upon filing the notice of appeal and paying the ₱1,000.00 appeal fee to the trial court within five days. Aguilar complied with this requirement on April 21, 2008. COMELEC Resolution No. 8486, which clarified the need for an additional ₱3,200.00 appeal fee payable to the COMELEC Cash Division, was issued on July 15, 2008, almost three months after Aguilar's appeal was perfected. The COMELEC First Division's hasty dismissal of the appeal on July 31, 2008, based on this new clarificatory resolution, was deemed unjust. Fairness and prudence dictated that Aguilar should have been directed to pay the additional fee first, and only then dismissed if he refused. The Court reiterated that election law and rules should be interpreted liberally to give effect to the will of the electorate, especially when only one vote separates the parties. The dismissal for non-payment of the additional fee, without prior notice and opportunity to comply, was an undue prejudice to the perfection of the appeal.
Main Doctrine
Orders issued by a Division of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) resolving motions for reconsideration of final orders, which by constitutional mandate should be decided by the COMELEC en banc, are considered null and void for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion. Furthermore, the perfection of an appeal in election cases is achieved upon the filing of the notice of appeal and payment of the prescribed appeal fee to the trial court, and subsequent procedural lapses regarding additional fees to the COMELEC should not result in the outright dismissal of the appeal, especially when the clarificatory rules were issued after the appeal was perfected.