Lim-Bungcaras v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: During the May 10, 2010 Automated Elections, several candidates vied for local elective positions in Saint Bernard, Southern Leyte. The proclaimed winners for Mayor and Vice-Mayor were Rico Rentuza and Rachel Avendula, respectively, over petitioners Jocelyn Lim-Bungcaras and Hermenegildo Castil. The eight highest vote-getters for Sangguniang Bayan Members were private respondents Manuel Calapre, Saturnino Cinco, Fernan Salas, Antonio Dalugdugan, Federico Japon, Santiago Santiago, Jacinta Malubay, and Belen Bungcag, while petitioners Aldrin Pamaos, Jesus Avendula, Jr., Domingo Ramada, Jr., and Victor Ramada received lower vote counts. The petitioners initiated election protests before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Juan, Southern Leyte, contesting these results. 2. Procedural History: The consolidated election protests were decided by the RTC on November 17, 2010, which declared the proclaimed winners as the rightful victors and dismissed the protests. Furthermore, the RTC ordered the petitioners to pay substantial moral damages and attorney's fees to the private respondents. The petitioners filed notices of appeal with the RTC, which were granted due course. These appeals were then elevated to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). The COMELEC First Division, through three separate orders dated February 1, 2011, dismissed the appeals, citing the petitioners' failure to pay the required appeal fees to the COMELEC within the reglementary period. The COMELEC En Banc, in a Resolution dated September 6, 2013, denied the petitioners' motions for reconsideration, deeming the appeals moot due to the expiration of the contested offices' terms. 3. The Petition: These consolidated petitions for certiorari were filed under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assailing the COMELEC First Division's Orders and the COMELEC En Banc's Resolution. The petitioners argue that they duly perfected their appeals by timely paying the required appeal fees, asserting that COMELEC Resolution No. 8486, which allows a 15-day period for paying the COMELEC appeal fee from the filing of the notice of appeal with the trial court, was erroneously disregarded by the COMELEC. They also contend that the COMELEC En Banc erred in dismissing their appeals as moot, pointing out that the issue of damages awarded by the RTC remained ripe for adjudication. The petitioners seek the reversal of the COMELEC's dismissal orders and the COMELEC En Banc's resolution, and also challenge the RTC's award of moral damages and attorney's fees.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioners perfected their appeals by timely paying the required appeal fees. Whether the issues raised by the petitioners before the COMELEC En Banc had already been rendered moot by the expiration of the terms of the contested offices; and whether the awards of moral damages and attorney's fees were proper.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petitions, reversed the COMELEC First Division's Orders and the COMELEC En Banc's Resolution, and set them aside. The Court also reversed the RTC's Consolidated Decision insofar as the award of moral damages and attorney's fees was concerned, rendering the portion declaring the private respondents as winners moot and academic due to the expiration of the terms of office.
Ratio Decidendi
On the perfection of appeals: The Supreme Court held that the COMELEC First Division erred in dismissing the petitioners' appeals. The Court clarified that for municipal election contests, A.M. No. 10-4-1-SC governs, requiring the filing of a notice of appeal and payment of a ₱1,000.00 appeal fee to the trial court within five days, and an additional ₱3,200.00 appeal fee to the COMELEC. Crucially, COMELEC Resolution No. 8486 extended the period for paying the COMELEC appeal fee to fifteen (15) days from the filing of the notice of appeal with the lower court. The Court found that petitioners Lim-Bungcaras and Pamaos timely paid the COMELEC appeal fee within this extended period. However, petitioners Castil, Avendula, Domingo Ramada, Jr., and Victor Ramada failed to remit their respective payments, which was a valid ground for dismissal of their appeals. Despite this, the Court, considering the circumstances, took cognizance of their appeals as well. On the mootness of the issues, and the awards of moral damages and attorney's fees: The Supreme Court found the COMELEC En Banc's dismissal of the appeals on the ground of mootness due to the expiration of the terms of office to be erroneous. Citing Malaluan v. Commission on Elections, the Court held that when an election protest decision includes a monetary award for damages, the issue of such award is not rendered moot by the expiration of the term of office. The Court noted that the RTC awarded substantial moral damages and attorney's fees, making the question of liability for these monetary awards ripe for adjudication. Therefore, the expiration of the terms of office did not render the entire case moot. The Court found the RTC's award of moral damages of ₱450,000.00 in favor of each private respondent to be improper and not sanctioned under current election law, as the current Omnibus Election Code only permits actual or compensatory damages. The Court also found the RTC's award of attorney's fees of ₱150,000.00 in favor of each private respondent to be unwarranted because the private respondents did not adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate their entitlement to the claim.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court held that the COMELEC First Division erred in dismissing the petitioners' appeals for failure to pay the appeal fee within the reglementary period, as COMELEC Resolution No. 8486 extended the period for payment. Furthermore, the COMELEC En Banc erred in declaring the appeals moot due to the expiration of the terms of office, as the issue of damages remained ripe for adjudication. The Court also found that the award of moral damages and attorney's fees by the RTC was unwarranted.