Lloren vs. COMELEC

The perfection of an appeal in a municipal election contest requires the timely payment of two separate appeal fees — ₱1,000.00 to the trial court upon filing of the notice of appeal within five days from promulgation, and ₱3,200.00 to the COMELEC within fifteen days from the filing of the notice of appeal — as clarified by COMELEC Resolution No. 8486, which superseded the shorter period under Section 4, Rule 40 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure. Non-payment of prescribed fees under Section 18, Rule 40 is discretionary and permissive, not mandatory, such that outright denial of a motion for non-payment is unwarranted where the movant ultimately pays the fee.

Petitioner Bienvenido William D. Lloren and respondent Rogelio Pua, Jr. were rival candidates for Vice-Mayor of the Municipality of Inopacan, Leyte in the May 10, 2010 Automated National and Local Elections. The procedural framework governing their election contest involved two sets of rules: the Rules of Procedure in Election Contests Before the Courts Involving Elective Municipal and Barangay Officials (A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC), promulgated by the Supreme Court and effective May 15, 2007, which superseded Rules 35 and 36 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure for trial-court-level election contests; and the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure, as amended by COMELEC Resolution No. 8486 (effective July 24, 2008), which clarified the payment of appeal fees to the COMELEC. The requirement of two appeal fees payable to two different jurisdictions had caused confusion, prompting the COMELEC to issue Resolution No. 8486 extending the period for paying the COMELEC appeal fee from five days to fifteen days reckoned from the filing of the notice of appeal in the trial court.

Petitioner Bienvenido William D. Lloren and respondent Rogelio Pua, Jr. were the candidates for Vice-Mayor of the Municipality of Inopacan, Leyte in the May 10, 2010 Automated National and Local Elections. The Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed Pua as the winning candidate, he having garnered 5,682 votes against petitioner's 4,930 votes, a plurality of 752 votes.

Alleging massive vote-buying, intimidation, defective PCOS machines in all the clustered precincts, election fraud, and other election-related manipulations, petitioner commenced Election Protest Case No. H-026 in the Regional Trial Court in Hilongos, Leyte. In his answer with special and affirmative defenses and counterclaim, Pua alleged that the election protest stated no cause of action, was insufficient in form and content, and should be dismissed for failure of petitioner to pay the required cash deposit.

On November 12, 2010, the RTC dismissed the election protest for insufficiency in form and substance and for failure to pay the required cash deposit. On November 17, 2010, petitioner filed a notice of appeal in the RTC and paid the appeal fee of ₱1,000.00 to the same court. The RTC granted due course to the appeal on November 24, 2010. On December 2, 2010, the fifteenth day from the filing of the notice of appeal, petitioner remitted the appeal fee of ₱3,200.00 to the COMELEC Electoral Contests Adjudication Department by postal money order.

Through its order of January 31, 2011, the COMELEC First Division dismissed the appeal on the ground of petitioner's failure to pay the appeal fee within the period set under Section 4, Rule 40 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, relying on the ruling in Divinagracia vs. COMELEC that errors in non-payment or incomplete payment of appeal fees are no longer excusable. Petitioner moved for reconsideration on February 14, 2011, and later sent a notice dated March 3, 2011, stating that he paid the motion fee of ₱300.00 by postal money order. On March 16, 2011, the COMELEC En Banc denied the motion for reconsideration for failure to pay the required motion fee and directed the issuance of an entry of judgment. Aggrieved, petitioner commenced the present special civil action for certiorari to annul the assailed orders of the COMELEC.

• Timeliness of Appeal Fee Payment: Petitioner contended that he timely filed his notice of appeal in the RTC and timely paid the appeal fee of ₱1,000.00 on November 17, 2010, and that he also paid the appeal fee of ₱3,200.00 to the COMELEC ECAD on December 2, 2010 within the 15-day reglementary period counted from the filing of the notice of appeal, conformably with COMELEC Resolution No. 8486 dated July 15, 2008.

• Late Payment of COMELEC Appeal Fee: Pua maintained that petitioner paid the ₱3,200.00 beyond the five-day reglementary period under Section 4, Rule 40 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure.
• Non-Payment of Motion Fee: Pua argued that petitioner did not pay the motion fee of ₱300.00 prescribed under Section 7(f), Rule 40 of the same rules, and submitted that the dismissal of the appeal and denial of the motion for reconsideration did not constitute grave abuse of discretion.

• Timeliness of Appeal Fee Payment: Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner's appeal on the ground that the ₱3,200.00 appeal fee was not paid within the reglementary period, given the clarification in COMELEC Resolution No. 8486.
• Non-Payment of Motion Fee: Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration for non-payment of the ₱300.00 motion fee at the time of filing.
• Sufficiency of the Election Protest: Whether the RTC's dismissal of the election protest for insufficiency in form and content and for insufficiency of the cash deposit may be affirmed.

• Timeliness of Appeal Fee Payment: Yes. The COMELEC First Division committed grave abuse of discretion by relying on Section 4, Rule 40 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules — which required payment within the period to file the notice of appeal — instead of COMELEC Resolution No. 8486, which extended the period to fifteen days from the filing of the notice of appeal.
• Non-Payment of Motion Fee: Yes. The COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion in outrightly denying the motion for reconsideration, because Section 18, Rule 40 makes the consequence of non-payment discretionary and permissive, not mandatory, and petitioner actually paid the motion fee on March 3, 2011.
• Sufficiency of the Election Protest: No. The RTC's dismissal was proper and is affirmed, the election protest having failed to state the total number of precincts in the municipality as required by Section 10(c), Rule 2 of the Rules in A.M. No. 10-4-1-SC, and the cash deposit having been insufficient.

• Timeliness of Appeal Fee Payment: The rules on perfection of an appeal in an election case require two separate appeal fees: ₱1,000.00 paid to the trial court simultaneously with the filing of the notice of appeal within five days from promulgation under Section 9, Rule 14 of the Rules in A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC, and ₱3,200.00 paid to the COMELEC Cash Division through the ECAD within fifteen days from the filing of the notice of appeal, as clarified by COMELEC Resolution No. 8486. The confusion arising from the dual-fee requirement was resolved by the COMELEC itself through Resolution No. 8486, effective July 24, 2008, which expressly revised Section 4, Rule 40 of the 1993 Rules by extending the payment period from five days counted from promulgation to fifteen days reckoned from the filing of the notice of appeal. Petitioner filed his notice of appeal and paid ₱1,000.00 on November 17, 2010, within five days of the RTC's November 12, 2010 decision, and paid ₱3,200.00 on December 2, 2010, the fifteenth day from filing the notice of appeal. The COMELEC First Division's reliance on the superseded five-day period under Section 4, Rule 40, totally disregarding Resolution No. 8486, was plainly arbitrary and capricious, rendering its January 31, 2011 order null and void.

• Non-Payment of Motion Fee: Section 18, Rule 40 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure provides that if prescribed fees are not paid, the Commission "may refuse to take action thereon until they are paid and may dismiss the action or the proceeding." The use of "may" renders the authority discretionary and permissive, not mandatory and exclusive. The evident intent is to accord the movant an opportunity to pay the motion fee in full, with the dire consequence of denial befalling the movant only upon deliberate or unreasonable failure to pay. Petitioner's failure to pay the ₱300.00 motion fee simultaneously with the filing of his motion for reconsideration was neither deliberate nor unreasonable, as he actually paid the fee by postal money order on March 3, 2011. The COMELEC En Banc's strict and rigid application of the discretionary rule gave undue primacy to technicality over substance and would have perpetuated the patent error committed by the First Division in ignoring Resolution No. 8486. The March 16, 2011 order was accordingly struck down as a nullity.

• Sufficiency of the Election Protest: Notwithstanding the procedural irregularities committed by the COMELEC, the RTC's dismissal of EPC No. H-026 was in accord with the Rules in A.M. No. 10-4-1-SC. Section 10(c), Rule 2 requires an election protest to state, among other matters, the total number of precincts in the municipality and a detailed specification of the acts or omissions complained of. The RTC found that petitioner did not indicate the total number of precincts in the municipality, rendering the protest insufficient in form and content and warranting summary dismissal under Section 12, Rule 2, which enumerates insufficiency in form and content as a ground for motu proprio dismissal. The RTC likewise found the cash deposit insufficient, which was another ground for summary dismissal under Section 12(e). Summary dismissal upon any of these grounds is mandatory. The Court could not disturb the RTC's findings on insufficiency of the cash deposit.

• Two-Appeal-Fee Rule in Election Contests — The perfection of an appeal in a municipal or barangay election contest requires the payment of two separate appeal fees: (1) ₱1,000.00 to the trial court simultaneously with the filing of the notice of appeal within five days from promulgation of the decision, pursuant to Section 9, Rule 14 of the Rules in A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC; and (2) ₱3,200.00 to the COMELEC Cash Division through the ECAD or by postal money order within fifteen days from the filing of the notice of appeal, pursuant to COMELEC Resolution No. 8486. The Court applied this doctrine by finding that petitioner had complied with both requirements, the COMELEC First Division having erroneously relied on the superseded five-day period under Section 4, Rule 40 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules.

• Discretionary Nature of Dismissal for Non-Payment of Fees — Under Section 18, Rule 40 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure, the Commission "may refuse to take action" on a motion or pleading until prescribed fees are paid and "may dismiss the action or the proceeding." The use of "may" renders the authority discretionary and permissive, not mandatory. Outright denial of a motion for non-payment of fees is unwarranted where the movant ultimately pays the fee; denial should befall the movant only upon deliberate or unreasonable failure to pay. The Court applied this doctrine by annulling the COMELEC En Banc's outright denial of petitioner's motion for reconsideration, given that petitioner had actually paid the ₱300.00 motion fee on March 3, 2011.

• Mandatory Summary Dismissal of Election Protests — Under Section 12, Rule 2 of the Rules in A.M. No. 10-4-1-SC, the court shall summarily dismiss, motu proprio, an election protest on enumerated grounds, including insufficiency in form and content under Section 10 and non-payment of the required cash deposit within five days from filing. Summary dismissal upon any of these grounds is mandatory. The Court applied this doctrine by affirming the RTC's dismissal, the protest having failed to state the total number of precincts in the municipality and the cash deposit having been insufficient.

• "The non-payment of the motion fee of ₱ 300.00 at the time of the filing of the motion for reconsideration did not warrant the outright denial of the motion for reconsideration, but might only justify the COMELEC to refuse to take action on the motion for reconsideration until the fees were paid, or to dismiss the action or proceeding when no full payment of the fees is ultimately made." — This passage articulates the discretionary and permissive nature of the COMELEC's authority to dismiss for non-payment of prescribed fees under Section 18, Rule 40, distinguishing it from a mandatory duty to dismiss outright.

• "for notices of appeal filed after the promulgation of this decision, errors in the matter of non-payment or incomplete payment of the two appeal fees in election cases are no longer excusable." — This quotation from Divinagracia vs. COMELEC, as adopted by the Court, establishes the strict standard for compliance with the two-appeal-fee requirement, while the present decision clarifies that strictness must be applied in accordance with the correct governing rule — Resolution No. 8486, not the superseded Section 4, Rule 40.

• "The reliance on Section 4 of Rule 40 of the COMELEC 1993 Rules of Procedure was plainly arbitrary and capricious." — This statement defines the standard for grave abuse of discretion in the context of an administrative body's disregard of its own clarifying resolution, rendering its order null and void.

• Divinagracia vs. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 186007 & 186016, July 27, 2009 — Followed and clarified. The Court cited Divinagracia for the proposition that errors in non-payment or incomplete payment of the two appeal fees in election cases are no longer excusable for notices of appeal filed after its promulgation. However, the Court clarified that Divinagracia's strict rule presupposes application of the correct governing period — that under Resolution No. 8486 (fifteen days from filing of notice of appeal), not the superseded five-day period under Section 4, Rule 40. Divinagracia was also cited as having identified the confusion caused by the two-appeal-fee requirement.

• Section 8, Rule 14, Rules in A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC — Provides that an aggrieved party may appeal the decision of the trial court to the COMELEC within five days after promulgation by filing a notice of appeal in the trial court that rendered the decision. Applied to confirm that petitioner's filing of his notice of appeal on November 17, 2010, within five days of the November 12, 2010 RTC decision, was timely.

• Section 9, Rule 14, Rules in A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC — Prescribes an appeal fee of ₱1,000.00 to be paid to the trial court rendering the decision simultaneously with the filing of the notice of appeal. Applied to confirm that petitioner's payment of ₱1,000.00 to the RTC on November 17, 2010 was timely and proper.

• COMELEC Resolution No. 8486 (effective July 24, 2008) — Clarified the implementation of COMELEC rules on payment of appeal fees for appealed cases involving barangay and municipal elective positions, allowing the appellant to pay the COMELEC appeal fee of ₱3,200.00 through the ECAD or by postal money order within fifteen days from the filing of the notice of appeal in the lower court. Applied as the controlling rule superseding Section 4, Rule 40 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules, thereby establishing that petitioner's payment on December 2, 2010 — the fifteenth day from filing the notice of appeal — was timely.

• Section 4, Rule 40, 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure — Required payment of appeal fees to the COMELEC Cash Division within the period to file the notice of appeal. Found to have been superseded by Resolution No. 8486, which extended the period to fifteen days from filing of the notice of appeal; the COMELEC First Division's reliance on this provision was held to be arbitrary and capricious.

• Section 7(f), Rule 40, 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure — Prescribes a motion fee of ₱300.00. Cited by the COMELEC En Banc as the basis for denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration for non-payment; the Court held that non-payment under this provision is governed by the discretionary language of Section 18, Rule 40.

• Section 18, Rule 40, 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure — Provides that if prescribed fees are not paid, the Commission "may refuse to take action thereon until they are paid and may dismiss the action or the proceeding." Held to be discretionary and permissive, not mandatory, such that outright denial of a motion for non-payment is unwarranted where the movant ultimately pays the fee.

• Section 10(c), Rule 2, Rules in A.M. No. 10-4-1-SC — Requires an election protest to state, among other matters, the total number of precincts in the municipality and a detailed specification of the acts or omissions complained of showing electoral frauds, anomalies, or irregularities. Applied to affirm the RTC's dismissal, petitioner having failed to indicate the total number of precincts in the municipality.

• Section 12, Rule 2, Rules in A.M. No. 10-4-1-SC — Mandates summary dismissal, motu proprio, of an election protest on enumerated grounds, including insufficiency in form and content under Section 10 and non-payment of the required cash deposit within five days from filing. Applied to affirm the RTC's dismissal, the summary dismissal being mandatory upon finding either ground.

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion, Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo, Associate Justice Roberto A. Abad (on official leave), Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Associate Justice Jose Portugal Perez, Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza, Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes, and Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe concurred.