June 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > June 2009 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 184677 : June 02, 2009] RODOLFO VILLANUEVA V. ROGELIO YARA AND COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MANILA:
[G.R. No. 184677 : June 02, 2009]
RODOLFO VILLANUEVA V. ROGELIO YARA AND COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MANILA
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated June 2, 2009
"G.R. No. 184677 (Rodolfo Villanueva v. Rogelio Yara and Commission on Elections, Manila). - From the decision of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Fourth Judicial Region, Puerto Princesa City, dated April 14, 2008,[1] which ruled that respondent Rogelio Yara won as Punong Barangay of Barangay Bagong Bayan, Puerto Princesa City, during the October 29, 2007 Barangay Elections, petitioner appealed to the Commission on Elections (Comelec).
Petitioner timely filed the notice of appeal and paid the P1,000.00 appeal fee with the MTCC.
On September 8, 2008, petitioner received an Order[2] from the Second Division of the Comelec, dated August 27, 2008. dismissing the appeal for his failure to pay the correct appeal fee of P3200.00 to the Comelec in accordance with Resolution No. 8486.
Petitioner assails the dismissal of his appeal alleging in the main that Resolution No. 8486 of the Comelec, which was promulgated on July 15, 2008, should not be given retroactive effect and made to apply to his case.
The petitioner's contention is untenable.
It must be noted that Comelec Resolution No. 8486, which was promulgated on July 15, 2008, is not new. It is merely a reiteration and/or clarification of Comelec Resolution No. 02-0130 which took effect on September 18, 2002 regarding the payment of appeal fees. Pursuant to Sections 3 and 4, Rule 40 of the 1993 Comelec Rules of Procedure, an appeal fee must be paid to the Comelec for an appeal to prosper. Comelec Resolution No. 02-0130 prescribes P3,000.00 as appeal fee plus P50.00 for legal research fee and P150.00 for bailiffs fee. The requirement of an appeal fee is by no means a mere technicality of law or procedure. It is a jurisdictional requirement. Non-compliance warrants the outright dismissal of an appeal.[3]
In addition, the petition must also fail, considering that petitioner failed to comply with the requirements provided by the Rules of Court. The petition lacks the certification as to non-forum shopping; proof of service to the Comelec; affidavit of service; and certified true copy or duplicate original copy of the assailed judgment. Petitioner ought to be reminded that procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed, simply because their non-observance may result in prejudice to the parties' substantive rights. While it is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is equally true that every case must be presented in accordance with the prescribed procedure to ensure an orderly and speedy administration of justice.[4]
Furthermore, petitioner failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the Comelec Second Division Decision, dated August 27, 2008, before filing the instant petition for certiorari with this Court. Rule 65, Section 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, requires that there be no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. A motion for reconsideration is a plain and adequate remedy provided by law. Failure to abide by this procedural requirement constitutes a ground for dismissal. In like manner, a decision, order, or resolution of a division of the Comelec must be reviewed by the Comelec En Banc via a motion for reconsideration before the final En Banc decision may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari. The pre-requisite filing of a motion for reconsideration is mandatory.[5] Considering that no motion for reconsideration was seasonably filed in this case, the Decision of the Comelec Second Division dated August 27, 2008, thus, became final and executory.[6] Accordingly, the entry of judgment thereof was made in due course on October 28, 2008.[7]
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
"Carpio Morales and ChicoNazario, JJ., on official leave.
"G.R. No. 184677 (Rodolfo Villanueva v. Rogelio Yara and Commission on Elections, Manila). - From the decision of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Fourth Judicial Region, Puerto Princesa City, dated April 14, 2008,[1] which ruled that respondent Rogelio Yara won as Punong Barangay of Barangay Bagong Bayan, Puerto Princesa City, during the October 29, 2007 Barangay Elections, petitioner appealed to the Commission on Elections (Comelec).
Petitioner timely filed the notice of appeal and paid the P1,000.00 appeal fee with the MTCC.
On September 8, 2008, petitioner received an Order[2] from the Second Division of the Comelec, dated August 27, 2008. dismissing the appeal for his failure to pay the correct appeal fee of P3200.00 to the Comelec in accordance with Resolution No. 8486.
Petitioner assails the dismissal of his appeal alleging in the main that Resolution No. 8486 of the Comelec, which was promulgated on July 15, 2008, should not be given retroactive effect and made to apply to his case.
The petitioner's contention is untenable.
It must be noted that Comelec Resolution No. 8486, which was promulgated on July 15, 2008, is not new. It is merely a reiteration and/or clarification of Comelec Resolution No. 02-0130 which took effect on September 18, 2002 regarding the payment of appeal fees. Pursuant to Sections 3 and 4, Rule 40 of the 1993 Comelec Rules of Procedure, an appeal fee must be paid to the Comelec for an appeal to prosper. Comelec Resolution No. 02-0130 prescribes P3,000.00 as appeal fee plus P50.00 for legal research fee and P150.00 for bailiffs fee. The requirement of an appeal fee is by no means a mere technicality of law or procedure. It is a jurisdictional requirement. Non-compliance warrants the outright dismissal of an appeal.[3]
In addition, the petition must also fail, considering that petitioner failed to comply with the requirements provided by the Rules of Court. The petition lacks the certification as to non-forum shopping; proof of service to the Comelec; affidavit of service; and certified true copy or duplicate original copy of the assailed judgment. Petitioner ought to be reminded that procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed, simply because their non-observance may result in prejudice to the parties' substantive rights. While it is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is equally true that every case must be presented in accordance with the prescribed procedure to ensure an orderly and speedy administration of justice.[4]
Furthermore, petitioner failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the Comelec Second Division Decision, dated August 27, 2008, before filing the instant petition for certiorari with this Court. Rule 65, Section 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, requires that there be no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. A motion for reconsideration is a plain and adequate remedy provided by law. Failure to abide by this procedural requirement constitutes a ground for dismissal. In like manner, a decision, order, or resolution of a division of the Comelec must be reviewed by the Comelec En Banc via a motion for reconsideration before the final En Banc decision may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari. The pre-requisite filing of a motion for reconsideration is mandatory.[5] Considering that no motion for reconsideration was seasonably filed in this case, the Decision of the Comelec Second Division dated August 27, 2008, thus, became final and executory.[6] Accordingly, the entry of judgment thereof was made in due course on October 28, 2008.[7]
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
"Carpio Morales and ChicoNazario, JJ., on official leave.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, p. 7.
[2] Id. at 7-8.
[3] Zamoras v. Commission on Elections, G.R. 158610, November 12, 2004, 442 SCRA 397.
[4] Mindanao Savings and Loan Association, Inc. v. Vda. de Flores, G.R. No. 142022. September 7, 2005.469 SCRA 416, 423.
[5] Ambil, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 143398. October 25, 2000. 344 SCRA 158. 366.
[6] Order dated October 24, 2008, rollo, p. 79.
[7] Rollo, pp. 80-81.
