Barro v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Carmelinda C. Barro and respondent Elpedio P. Continedas, Jr. were candidates for Punong Barangay of Barangay Plaridel, Palompon, Leyte. Petitioner initially won by one vote, 150 to 149. Respondent filed an election protest, and after ballot revision, both candidates were found to have received 151 votes, necessitating a drawing of lots. Procedural History: Petitioner appealed the Municipal Trial Court's decision to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). The COMELEC's First Division dismissed her appeal for failure to pay the prescribed appeal fee within the reglementary period. A subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied by the First Division. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC's First Division in dismissing her appeal and denying her motion for reconsideration. She argues that she paid the appeal fee to the trial court as required by A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC, and that the COMELEC's dismissal was premature, especially in light of subsequent jurisprudence clarifying appeal fee payment rules. Furthermore, she contends that the First Division erred in resolving her motion for reconsideration, as such motions should be decided by the COMELEC en banc.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC First Division committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal. Whether the COMELEC First Division committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration and acting on it without elevating it to the COMELEC en banc.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Orders dated November 25, 2008 and January 9, 2009 by the First Division of the COMELEC, and the Entry of Judgment issued on April 1, 2009 by the Electoral Contests Adjudication Department are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The case is REMANDED to the First Division of the Commission on Elections for disposition in accordance with this Decision.
Ratio Decidendi
On the dismissal of the appeal: The Court found that the COMELEC First Division committed grave abuse of discretion. The petitioner filed her appeal and paid the ₱1,000.00 appeal fee on May 13, 2008, perfecting her appeal. This was two months before COMELEC issued Resolution No. 8486 on July 15, 2008, which clarified the rules on appeal fees. Citing Jerry B. Aguilar v. Commission on Elections, the Court held that fairness and prudence dictated that the COMELEC First Division should have first directed the petitioner to pay the additional appeal fee of ₱3,200.00 in accordance with the clarificatory resolution, and only dismiss the appeal if she refused to comply. Dismissing the appeal on a mere technicality of non-payment of the additional fee, given the public interest involved in election cases and the timing of the clarificatory resolution, was deemed a grave abuse of discretion. The Court also noted that the trial court gave due course to the appeal, suggesting initial compliance with procedural requirements. On the denial of the motion for reconsideration and acting without elevating to the en banc: The Court held that the COMELEC First Division committed grave abuse of discretion by resolving the motion for reconsideration of its own order without elevating the same to the COMELEC en banc. Section 3, Article IX-C of the Constitution and Sections 5 and 6, Rule 19 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure mandate that motions for reconsideration of decisions, resolutions, orders, or rulings of a Division must be decided by the Commission en banc. By arrogating unto itself the power to rule on the motion for reconsideration, the First Division acted in excess of its jurisdiction. Therefore, the Order dated January 9, 2009, denying the motion for reconsideration, is null and void. The Court also noted that the COMELEC First Division issued an Order declaring its November 25, 2008 Order final and executory and ordered the issuance of an Entry of Judgment, which actions were also set aside.
Main Doctrine
The First Division of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing an appeal for failure to pay the full appeal fee when the appeal was perfected prior to the issuance of a clarificatory resolution on appeal fees, and in resolving a motion for reconsideration of a Division's order without elevating it to the COMELEC en banc as mandated by the Constitution and its rules.