Divinagracia v. Commission on Elections
MODIFICATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Salvador Divinagracia, Jr. (petitioner) and Alex Centena (private respondent) vied for the vice-mayoralty race in Calinog, Iloilo. Petitioner garnered 8,141 votes, 13 more than respondent's 8,128 votes. Petitioner was proclaimed the winner. Private respondent filed an election protest alleging irregularities in the appreciation of marked ballots. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the protest, ruling that private respondent failed to overcome the presumption of regularity in elections as no objections were raised before the election inspectors or canvassers. Procedural History: Both parties appealed to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). The COMELEC Second Division reversed the RTC decision, declaring private respondent as the duly elected vice-mayor. The COMELEC found the RTC decision fatally defective for failing to indicate specific markings on contested ballots. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that both parties failed to pay the correct appeal fee of ₱3,200. The COMELEC En Banc affirmed the Second Division's resolution, holding that petitioner was barred by estoppel by laches for failing to raise the issue of jurisdiction earlier. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition, asserting that the payment of appeal fees is a mandatory and jurisdictional requirement that can be raised at any stage. He argued that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in issuing the assailed resolutions.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the assailed Resolutions. Whether the COMELEC acquired jurisdiction over the appeal for failure of the appellant to pay the filing fee/appeal fee. Whether payment of filing fee/appeal fee is mandatory and jurisdictional, hence, can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. Whether the COMELEC's rulings were inconsistent and in derogation of proper administration of justice. Whether petitioner is barred by estoppel by laches from raising the issue of jurisdiction.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The July 17, 2008 Resolution and the January 26, 2009 Resolution of the Commission on Elections are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the COMELEC's factual findings and grave abuse of discretion: The Court held that the appreciation of contested ballots and election documents involves questions of fact best left to the determination of the COMELEC. In the absence of grave abuse of discretion, jurisdictional infirmity, or error of law, the COMELEC's factual findings, conclusions, rulings, and decisions within its competence are not to be interfered with by the Supreme Court. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion regarding the COMELEC's findings on marked ballots containing the name "Ruby Lizardo" and its variants, as there was evidence aliunde to support the conclusion that these markings were used to identify the voter. On the issue of jurisdiction and payment of appeal fees: The Court reiterated the jurisprudential development regarding the payment of filing and appeal fees in election cases, starting from Loyola v. Comelec. It noted that while payment of appeal fees is a jurisdictional requirement, the COMELEC has discretion in dismissing an appeal for non-payment or insufficient payment, particularly in light of the confusion arising from the interplay of Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 07-4-15-SC and COMELEC Rules of Procedure. COMELEC Resolution No. 8486 clarified that while the appeal is perfected upon payment of the ₱1,000 appeal fee to the lower court, the non-payment or insufficient payment of the additional ₱3,200 appeal fee to the COMELEC does not result in automatic dismissal but gives the COMELEC discretion. The Court emphasized that for notices of appeal filed after the promulgation of the present decision, errors in the matter of non-payment or incomplete payment of the two appeal fees are no longer excusable. On the issue of payment of filing fee/appeal fee being mandatory and jurisdictional: Addressed in the ratio for the second issue regarding jurisdiction and payment of appeal fees. On the petitioner's failure to assail substantive aspects and his own conduct: The Court noted that petitioner failed to establish or allege grave abuse of discretion with respect to the substance of the assailed resolutions, particularly concerning the COMELEC's findings on marked ballots. His silence on these substantive aspects was deemed an implied waiver, as the Court abhors a piecemeal approach to arguments. The Court pointed out that the petitioner was guilty of the same act he assailed, as he himself admittedly did not pay the appeal fee. The principle of "he who comes to court must come with clean hands" was invoked, further weakening his petition. On the issue of estoppel by laches: The Court found that petitioner was barred by estoppel by laches from raising the issue of lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner raised the issue of non-payment of appeal fees only after the COMELEC had appreciated the contested ballots and ruled in favor of the private respondent. His active participation in the proceedings, including filing briefs and a motion for reconsideration, constituted an invocation of the COMELEC's jurisdiction. The Court cited cases like Navarosa v. Comelec and Villagracia v. Commission on Elections to support the application of estoppel, where parties who actively participated in proceedings and only raised jurisdictional issues belatedly, especially after an adverse decision, were precluded from doing so.
Main Doctrine
The payment of the appeal fee is a jurisdictional requirement, but the COMELEC may exercise discretion in dismissing an appeal for non-payment or insufficient payment, especially if the appeal was perfected before the issuance of clarifying resolutions. Estoppel by laches may bar a party from raising jurisdictional issues belatedly, particularly after actively participating in the proceedings.