Revilla v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Eugenio T. Revilla, Sr. and Gerardo L. Lanoy were candidates for Punong Barangay of Barangay Cabligan, Matanao, Davao del Sur in the October 29, 2007 barangay elections. Initially, Revilla was proclaimed the winner with 309 votes against Lanoy's 307. Lanoy filed an election protest, alleging that several votes were not credited to him. After a revision of votes, the Second Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) ruled in favor of Lanoy, finding he had garnered 312 votes compared to Revilla's 311. 2. Procedural History: Revilla appealed the MCTC decision to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and paid an appeal fee of P1,000.00. The COMELEC Second Division initially dismissed the appeal on December 18, 2008, for failure to pay the full appeal fee of P3,200.00 as required by COMELEC Resolution No. 8486. Revilla subsequently paid the appeal fee and filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the COMELEC Second Division on February 4, 2009, for insufficient motion fee payment. After paying the differential motion fee, Revilla filed a second motion for reconsideration. This second motion was denied by the COMELEC Second Division on March 9, 2009, on the grounds that it was a prohibited pleading. 3. The Petition: Revilla filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court, arguing that the COMELEC Second Division committed grave abuse of discretion by issuing orders denying his motions for reconsideration and dismissing his appeal. He contended that, pursuant to Article IX-C, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution and Rule 19, Sections 5 and 6 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, motions for reconsideration of decisions must be decided by the COMELEC en banc, not by a division. The petition also argued that the dismissal of his appeal was improper, as the appeal was perfected upon payment of the initial appeal fee, and the subsequent non-payment or insufficient payment of additional fees did not result in an ipso facto dismissal.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC Second Division committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motions for reconsideration instead of certifying them to the COMELEC En Banc. Whether the failure to pay the additional appeal fee of P3,200.00 to the COMELEC results in the automatic dismissal of the appeal.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is GRANTED. The December 18, 2008, February 4, 2009, and March 9, 2009 Orders issued by the COMELEC Second Division in EAC (BRGY) No. 148-2008 are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The case is REMANDED to the COMELEC Second Division for disposition in accordance with this Resolution.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Second Division acted with grave abuse of discretion because the 1987 Constitution and the COMELEC Rules of Procedure explicitly require motions for reconsideration of Division decisions to be decided by the Commission En Banc. Article IX-C, Section 3 of the Constitution states that while election cases are heard in division, motions for reconsideration 'shall be decided by the Commission en banc.' This is mirrored in Rule 19, Sections 5 and 6 of the COMELEC Rules, which mandate the Clerk of Court to certify such motions to the En Banc within a specific timeframe. The Court emphasized that this rule applies regardless of whether the motion fee has been paid or if the motion is a second motion for reconsideration. It is the En Banc, not the Division, that possesses the discretion to refuse action until fees are paid or to dismiss the proceeding. Consequently, the Orders issued by the Second Division denying the motions for reconsideration were null and void for lack of jurisdiction. On Issue 2: The Court ruled that the dismissal of Revilla's appeal for non-payment of the additional P3,200.00 fee was improper. Under A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC, an appeal is perfected by the filing of the notice of appeal and the payment of the P1,000.00 fee to the trial court within the reglementary period. Revilla complied with this on March 31, 2008, thereby perfecting his appeal. The Court clarified that the subsequent non-payment or insufficient payment of the additional appeal fee to the COMELEC Cash Division does not result in the 'ipso facto' dismissal of the appeal. While Rule 22, Section 9(a) and Rule 40, Section 18 of the COMELEC Rules state that the Commission 'may' dismiss the action for non-payment, such dismissal is discretionary and not automatic. Given that Revilla's initial payment was made months before the clarificatory Resolution No. 8486 was issued, the Division's summary dismissal constituted grave abuse of discretion.
Main Doctrine
Under Article IX-C, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution, all election cases must be heard and decided in division, provided that motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the Commission En Banc. This procedural requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional. A Division of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) has no authority to deny a motion for reconsideration, even if it is a second motion or if the motion fees are unpaid; such matters must be elevated to the En Banc for disposition. Furthermore, the perfection of an appeal in election cases involving municipal or barangay officials is achieved by filing the notice of appeal and paying the initial fee to the trial court within the reglementary period.