Soller vs. Commission on Elections

The Commission on Elections, sitting en banc, does not have jurisdiction to hear and decide election cases or petitions for certiorari relating to incidents of election protests in the first instance; such jurisdiction belongs exclusively to the COMELEC divisions. Furthermore, strict compliance with procedural requirements in election protests—including payment of filing fees, proper verification, and certification against forum shopping—is mandatory, and non-compliance warrants dismissal regardless of the presence of substantive merits.

The case arose from the May 11, 1998 local elections for the position of Municipal Mayor of Bansud, Oriental Mindoro. Following the proclamation of petitioner as the winning candidate, the defeated candidate filed multiple actions challenging the results, raising significant procedural questions regarding the jurisdiction of the COMELEC en banc versus its divisions, the sufficiency of filing fees, and compliance with Supreme Court circulars on verification and forum shopping.

• Petitioner Ferdinand Thomas M. Soller and private respondent Angel M. Saulong were candidates for the position of Municipal Mayor of Bansud, Oriental Mindoro in the May 11, 1998 elections.
• On May 14, 1998, the Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed petitioner as duly elected mayor.
• On May 19, 1998, private respondent filed with the COMELEC a petition for annulment of the proclamation/exclusion of election return (pre-proclamation case).
• On May 25, 1998, private respondent filed an election protest with the Regional Trial Court of Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro, docketed as EC-31-98.
• On June 15, 1998, petitioner filed his answer with counter-protest and moved to dismiss the election protest on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, forum-shopping, and failure to state a cause of action.
• On July 3, 1998, the COMELEC dismissed the pre-proclamation case filed by private respondent.
• On October 1, 1998, the RTC denied petitioner's motion to dismiss; the motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.
• The filing fees paid by private respondent were itemized as follows: P368.00 for the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF), P32.00 credited to the general fund as filing fee, P46.00 and P4.00 for summons fees, P10.00 for legal research fund, and P5.00 for victim compensation fund, totaling P465.00.
• Under Section 9, Rule 35 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, the required filing fee for an election protest is P300.00 per interest; however, only P32.00 of the amount paid was credited as filing fee, with P368.00 allocated to the JDF.
• The verification attached to the election protest merely stated that private respondent caused the preparation of the petition and that he read and understood the allegations therein, but failed to state that the contents were true and correct of his personal knowledge.
• Private respondent failed to disclose in his election protest the existence of the pending pre-proclamation case filed earlier with the COMELEC, constituting a failure to comply with the certification against forum shopping.

• The COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in affirming the RTC's refusal to dismiss the election protest despite private respondent's failure to pay the requisite filing fee of P300.00, as only P32.00 was paid and credited to the general fund while the larger amount was allocated to the JDF.
• The COMELEC erred in affirming the RTC's refusal to dismiss despite the insufficiency of the petition in form and substance and its failure to state a cause of action.
• The COMELEC erred in affirming the RTC's refusal to dismiss on the grounds of forum-shopping and failure to comply with the Supreme Court Circular requiring a truthful certification of non-forum shopping, given that private respondent filed both a pre-proclamation case with COMELEC and an election protest with the RTC without disclosing the pendency of the first case.

• Private respondent paid the required filing fee for the election protest.
• The defect in the verification is a mere technical defect which should not bar the determination of the merits of the case.
• There was no forum shopping to speak of in the filing of the election protest.

• Procedural Issues: Whether the Commission on Elections, sitting en banc, had jurisdiction to hear and decide the petition for certiorari assailing the interlocutory orders of the Regional Trial Court in the first instance, or whether such jurisdiction belongs to the COMELEC divisions.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the election protest should be dismissed for failure to pay the prescribed filing fee of P300.00 under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure.
  • Whether the election protest should be dismissed for defective verification that failed to comply with the requirement that the affiant state the allegations are true and correct of personal knowledge.
  • Whether the election protest should be dismissed for failure to comply with the mandatory certification against forum shopping.

• Procedural: The Supreme Court held that the COMELEC en banc acted without jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the petitioner's petition for certiorari in the first instance. Under Section 3, Subdivision C of Article IX of the Constitution, the COMELEC may sit en banc or in two divisions, and all election cases shall be heard and decided in division, with motions for reconsideration decided by the Commission en banc. Following Sarmiento vs. COMELEC and subsequent cases, the authority to resolve petitions for certiorari involving incidental issues of election protests, such as orders denying motions to dismiss, falls within the jurisdiction of a COMELEC division, not the en banc. The order denying the motion to dismiss is an interlocutory incident of the election protest, and if the principal case is cognizable by a division on appeal, then incidental petitions for certiorari should also be referred first to a division.
• Substantive: The Supreme Court ruled that the election protest must be dismissed on three independent grounds: (1) Failure to pay filing fees: A court acquires jurisdiction only upon payment of the prescribed docket fee. Private respondent paid only P32.00 as filing fee instead of the required P300.00. Following Pahilan, Gatchalian, Loyola, and Miranda, errors in the payment of filing fees in election cases are no longer excusable after the promulgation of Loyola on March 27, 1997, and dismissal is warranted. (2) Defective verification: The verification merely stated that respondent caused the preparation of the petition and read the allegations, but failed to state that the contents were true and correct of his personal knowledge. This renders the petition an unsigned pleading subject to dismissal under Section 4, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. (3) Failure to comply with certification against forum shopping: The requirement to file a certificate of non-forum shopping is mandatory for all initiatory pleadings. Private respondent failed to disclose the pending pre-proclamation case filed earlier with COMELEC. Compliance cannot be excused by the belief that the first case was abandoned or that the causes of action differ; parties cannot be the judge of their own compliance with the rule.

• Jurisdiction of COMELEC Divisions vs. En Banc — Under the Constitution, election cases must be heard and decided by COMELEC divisions in the first instance; the en banc only decides motions for reconsideration of division decisions. This applies to petitions for certiorari involving incidents of election protests, which must first be referred to a division.
• Strict Compliance with Filing Fees in Election Cases — Following the line of cases from Pahilan to Loyola and Miranda, errors in the payment of filing fees for election cases filed after March 27, 1997 are no longer excusable on grounds of good faith, excusable negligence, or mistake. Full payment of the prescribed docket fee is essential for the court to acquire jurisdiction.
• Mandatory Nature of Certification Against Forum Shopping — The requirement to file a certificate of non-forum shopping applies to any complaint, petition, application, or other initiatory pleading regardless of whether the party has actually committed forum shopping. It is mandatory and not merely directory, and compliance cannot depend on the party's subjective belief that they have not violated the rule.

• "A court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fee."
• "The requirement to file a certificate of non-forum shopping is mandatory. Failure to comply with this requirement cannot be excused by the fact that a party is not guilty of forum shopping."
• "Otherwise we would have an absurd situation, as in this case, where the parties themselves would be the judge of whether their actions constitute a violation of the rule, and compliance therewith would depend on their belief that they might or might not have violated the requirement."
• "Clearly then, errors in the payment of filing fees in election cases is no longer excusable."

• Sarmiento vs. COMELEC (212 SCRA 307) — Established that COMELEC en banc does not have authority to hear and decide election cases in the first instance; this power pertains to the divisions.
• Abad vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 128877, December 10, 1999) — Cited as subsequent case affirming the division jurisdiction doctrine.
• Zarate vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 129096, November 19, 1999) — Cited as subsequent case affirming the division jurisdiction doctrine.
• Atienza vs. Court of Appeals (232 SCRA 737) — Cited for the definition of an interlocutory order as one that does not end the trial court's task of adjudicating the parties' contentions.
• Suson vs. Court of Appeals (278 SCRA 284) — Cited for the principle that a court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fee.
• Miranda vs. Castillo (274 SCRA 503) — Cited regarding the treatment of partial payments of filing fees and the imposition of the caveat that errors would no longer be tolerated after Loyola.
• Loyola vs. COMELEC (337 Phil. 134) — Cited for the ruling that errors in filing fees are not excusable and the decision must not provide relief to parties in future cases involving inadequate payment.
• Gatchalian vs. Court of Appeals (315 Phil. 195) — Cited as part of the line of cases barring claims of good faith or excusable negligence in failure to pay filing fees.
• Pahilan vs. Tabalba (230 SCRA 205) — Cited as part of the line of cases establishing strict compliance with filing fees.
• Laodenio vs. COMELEC (276 SCRA 705) — Cited regarding the abandonment of pre-proclamation cases upon filing of election protests.
• Melo vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 123686, November 16, 1999) — Cited for the mandatory nature of the certification against forum shopping.

• Constitution, Article IX, Section 3 (Subdivision C) — Provides that the COMELEC may sit en banc or in two divisions, and that all election cases shall be heard and decided in division, with motions for reconsideration decided by the Commission en banc.
• COMELEC Rules of Procedure, Rule 35, Section 9 — Mandates the payment of a P300.00 filing fee for each interest in an election protest, counter-protest, or protest-in-intervention.
• COMELEC Rules of Procedure, Rule 13, Section 1(d) — States that a motion for reconsideration of an en banc ruling is prohibited except in cases involving election offenses.
• Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 7, Section 4 — Provides that a pleading lacking proper verification shall be treated as an unsigned pleading and dismissed.
• A.M. No. 00-2-10-SC — Cited for the requirement that a verification must state that allegations are true and correct of personal knowledge or based on authentic records (effective May 1, 2000).

• Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Purisima, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, and De Leon, Jr. — Concurred in the main opinion without separate statements.
• Pardo, J. — Took no part in the decision.