June 2007 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > June 2007 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 177630 : June 05, 2007] ROLANDO N. CANET V. HON. FIRST DIVISION, COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND BENJAMIN S. DECENA:
[G.R. No. 177630 : June 05, 2007]
ROLANDO N. CANET V. HON. FIRST DIVISION, COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND BENJAMIN S. DECENA
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated June 5, 2007
G.R. No. 177630 - (ROLANDO N. CANET v. HON. FIRST DIVISION, COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and BENJAMIN S. DECENA).
This special civil action for certiorari, with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining and/or preliminary injunction, assails the May 8, 2007 Orders[1] of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) First Division in EAC No. A-4-2007.
Petitioner Rolando Canet and private respondent Benjamin Decena were the mayoral candidates of Bula, Camarines Sur in the May 10, 2004 elections. After the canvassing of votes, Canet was proclaimed as the duly-elected mayor.
Dissatisfied with the result, Decena filed an election protest with the Regional Trial Court of Camarines Sur (RTC) on May 21, 2004. After due proceedings, the RTC rendered a Decision,[2] setting aside the proclamation of Canet and proclaiming Decena, who obtained a majority of 199 votes, as the duly-elected mayor.
Canet immediately filed a Notice of Appeal[3] with the RTC, and finding the same to be sufficient in form and substance, the RTC granted it on February 27, 2007 and ordered the elevation of the entire records of the case to the COMELEC.[4] The appeal was docketed as EAC No. A-4-2007 and was raffled to the COMELEC First Division.
On March 20, 2007, Decena moved to dismiss the appeal and to execute the RTC Decision. He claimed that Canet failed to perfect his appeal for failure to pay the required appeal fee, allowing the Decision of the RTC to become final and executory, and thus, the issuance of a writ execution is in order. Canet countered this, arguing that he paid the corresponding appeal fee.
On April 16, 2007, the COMELEC First Division issued an Order[5] dismissing the appeal, viz.:
On May 8, 2007, the COMELEC First Division handed down the assailed Orders,[7] respectively, granting Decena's motion for execution, and denying Canet's motion for reconsideration.
Hence, this petition for certiorari.
Canet ascribes grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC First Division in resolving his Motion for Reconsideration, claiming that only the COMELEC en banc can resolve a motion for reconsideration of the decision of the Division. Canet also maintains that he substantially complied with the COMELEC Rules on Appeal and the dismissal of his appeal was, therefore, unwarranted. Finally, he argues that the RTC Decision, as well as the Order of dismissal, is not yet final and executory and, hence, cannot be executed. He then concludes that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in dismissing his appeal and in subsequently denying its reconsideration, and in issuing a writ of execution.
The arguments fail to persuade.
We find that Canet filed his Notice of Appeal from the RTC Decision and paid an appeal fee of P1,120.00 on February 16, 2007, which is within the five-day reglementary period. However, COMELEC Resolution No. 02-0130, issued on September 18, 2002, prescribes P3,000.00 as the appeal fee, plus P50.00 as legal research fee, and P150.00 as bailiff's fee.[8] Therefore, Canet did not pay the correct appeal fees.
Jurisprudence is replete with rulings that the payment of the full amount of the docket fee is an indispensable step for the perfection of an appeal. In both original and appealed cases, the court acquires jurisdiction over the case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fees. Otherwise stated, the date of the payment of the filing fee is deemed the actual date of filing of the Notice of Appeal.[9]
In this case, Canet received the RTC Decision on February 16, 2007. However, he paid the full amount of appeal fees only on April 30, 2007. This was way beyond the five-day reglementary period to file an appeal.
The payment of the filing fees is a jurisdictional requirement and non-compliance therewith is a valid basis for the dismissal of the case. The subsequent full payment of the filing fees after the lapse of the reglementary period does not cure the jurisdictional defect.[10]
Canet cannot claim good faith, excusable negligence, or mistake for his failure to pay the full amount of appeal fees. We held in Zamoras v. Commission on Elections[11] that there is no longer any excuse for shortcomings and errors in the payment of filing fees in election cases. The Court will no longer tolerate any mistake in the payment of the full amount of filing fees for election cases. The COMELEC, therefore, acted well within its discretion in dismissing the appeal.
The right to appeal is merely a statutory privilege and a litigant may exercise such right to appeal only in the manner prescribed by law. The requirement of an appeal fee is by no means a mere technicality of law or procedure. It is an essential requirement without which the decision appealed from would become final and executory as if there were no appeal filed at all.[12] Because of this, the COMELEC was, therefore, precluded from taking cognizance of the case and left with no choice but to declare the RTC Decision final and executory. There was then no reason at all for the COMELEC First Division to certify the case to the COMELEC en banc for the resolution of Canet's motion for reconsideration.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.
G.R. No. 177630 - (ROLANDO N. CANET v. HON. FIRST DIVISION, COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and BENJAMIN S. DECENA).
This special civil action for certiorari, with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining and/or preliminary injunction, assails the May 8, 2007 Orders[1] of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) First Division in EAC No. A-4-2007.
Petitioner Rolando Canet and private respondent Benjamin Decena were the mayoral candidates of Bula, Camarines Sur in the May 10, 2004 elections. After the canvassing of votes, Canet was proclaimed as the duly-elected mayor.
Dissatisfied with the result, Decena filed an election protest with the Regional Trial Court of Camarines Sur (RTC) on May 21, 2004. After due proceedings, the RTC rendered a Decision,[2] setting aside the proclamation of Canet and proclaiming Decena, who obtained a majority of 199 votes, as the duly-elected mayor.
Canet immediately filed a Notice of Appeal[3] with the RTC, and finding the same to be sufficient in form and substance, the RTC granted it on February 27, 2007 and ordered the elevation of the entire records of the case to the COMELEC.[4] The appeal was docketed as EAC No. A-4-2007 and was raffled to the COMELEC First Division.
On March 20, 2007, Decena moved to dismiss the appeal and to execute the RTC Decision. He claimed that Canet failed to perfect his appeal for failure to pay the required appeal fee, allowing the Decision of the RTC to become final and executory, and thus, the issuance of a writ execution is in order. Canet countered this, arguing that he paid the corresponding appeal fee.
On April 16, 2007, the COMELEC First Division issued an Order[5] dismissing the appeal, viz.:
Pursuant to Section 3, Rule 40 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure which mandates the payment of appeal fee in the amount of P3,000.00 and Section 9(a), Rule 22 of the same Rules which provides that the failure to pay the correct appeal fee is a ground for the dismissal of the appeal, the Commission (First Division) RESOLVED as it is hereby RESOLVES to DISMISS the instant case for Protestee-Appellant's failure to perfect his appeal within five (5) days from receipt of the assailed decision sought to be appealed due to non-payment of the correct appeal fee.On April 23, 2007, Decena filed an Urgent Motion for Execution of the decision. Canet, on the other hand, moved for the reconsideration of the Order of dismissal by registered mail on April 30, 2007. He also remitted the appeal fee and the fees required for the motion for reconsideration by postal money order.
SO ORDERED.[6]
On May 8, 2007, the COMELEC First Division handed down the assailed Orders,[7] respectively, granting Decena's motion for execution, and denying Canet's motion for reconsideration.
Hence, this petition for certiorari.
Canet ascribes grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC First Division in resolving his Motion for Reconsideration, claiming that only the COMELEC en banc can resolve a motion for reconsideration of the decision of the Division. Canet also maintains that he substantially complied with the COMELEC Rules on Appeal and the dismissal of his appeal was, therefore, unwarranted. Finally, he argues that the RTC Decision, as well as the Order of dismissal, is not yet final and executory and, hence, cannot be executed. He then concludes that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in dismissing his appeal and in subsequently denying its reconsideration, and in issuing a writ of execution.
The arguments fail to persuade.
We find that Canet filed his Notice of Appeal from the RTC Decision and paid an appeal fee of P1,120.00 on February 16, 2007, which is within the five-day reglementary period. However, COMELEC Resolution No. 02-0130, issued on September 18, 2002, prescribes P3,000.00 as the appeal fee, plus P50.00 as legal research fee, and P150.00 as bailiff's fee.[8] Therefore, Canet did not pay the correct appeal fees.
Jurisprudence is replete with rulings that the payment of the full amount of the docket fee is an indispensable step for the perfection of an appeal. In both original and appealed cases, the court acquires jurisdiction over the case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fees. Otherwise stated, the date of the payment of the filing fee is deemed the actual date of filing of the Notice of Appeal.[9]
In this case, Canet received the RTC Decision on February 16, 2007. However, he paid the full amount of appeal fees only on April 30, 2007. This was way beyond the five-day reglementary period to file an appeal.
The payment of the filing fees is a jurisdictional requirement and non-compliance therewith is a valid basis for the dismissal of the case. The subsequent full payment of the filing fees after the lapse of the reglementary period does not cure the jurisdictional defect.[10]
Canet cannot claim good faith, excusable negligence, or mistake for his failure to pay the full amount of appeal fees. We held in Zamoras v. Commission on Elections[11] that there is no longer any excuse for shortcomings and errors in the payment of filing fees in election cases. The Court will no longer tolerate any mistake in the payment of the full amount of filing fees for election cases. The COMELEC, therefore, acted well within its discretion in dismissing the appeal.
The right to appeal is merely a statutory privilege and a litigant may exercise such right to appeal only in the manner prescribed by law. The requirement of an appeal fee is by no means a mere technicality of law or procedure. It is an essential requirement without which the decision appealed from would become final and executory as if there were no appeal filed at all.[12] Because of this, the COMELEC was, therefore, precluded from taking cognizance of the case and left with no choice but to declare the RTC Decision final and executory. There was then no reason at all for the COMELEC First Division to certify the case to the COMELEC en banc for the resolution of Canet's motion for reconsideration.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Annexes "B" and "C," rollo, pp. 15-18.
[2] Annex "E," id. at 21-26.
[3] Annex "F," id. at 27-30.
[4] Annex "G," id. at 31.
[5] Annex "H," id. at 32.
[6] Id.
[7] Supra note 1.
[8] Zamoras v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 158610, November 12, 2004, 442 SCRA 397, 404.
[9] Id. at 405.
[10] Id. at 406.
[11] Id. at 405.
[12] Id. at 406.
