January 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > January 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 183283 : January 12, 2010] JESUS GERMODO V. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS FIRST DIVISION, MANAGER OF THE ELECTORAL CONTESTS ADJUDICATION DEPARTMENT. COMELEC, AND GERRY ZAMORA :
[G.R. No. 183283 : January 12, 2010]
JESUS GERMODO V. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS FIRST DIVISION, MANAGER OF THE ELECTORAL CONTESTS ADJUDICATION DEPARTMENT. COMELEC, AND GERRY ZAMORA
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated January 12. 2010
"G.R. No. 183283 (Jesus Germodo v. The Commission on Elections First Division, Manager of the Electoral Contests Adjudication Department. COMELEC, and Gerry Zamora).
This case is about a Division of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) passing upon a motion for reconsideration of its final order that dismissed an appeal (for failure to pay the additional appeal fee) rather than referring the motion to the En Banc for resolution.
The Facts and the Case
Petitioner Jesus Germodo and respondent Gerry Zamora ran against each other for the position of Barangay Captain of Sundo-an, Manjuyod. Negros Oriental in the 2007 barangay elections. Germodo won with 373 votes as against Zamora's 370 votes. The Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed Germodo as the duly elected Barangay Captain.[1]
Upset with the results, respondent Zamora filed an election protest with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Bindoy, Negros Oriental, in Election Case M-05-07 BGY[2]On January 23, 2008, following a revision of the contested ballots, the MCTC rendered judgment, finding Zamora winner with 378 votes as against Germodo"s 377 votes. Thus, the MCTC declared respondent Zamora the proper winner.[3]
Petitioner Germodo appealed the lower court's decision to the COMELEC.[4] But on April 3. 2008 the COMELEC First Division issued an order,[5] dismissing his appeal for failure to pay the P3,000.00 appeal fee imposed under Section 3. Rule 40. and Section 9(a) of its Rules of Procedure. Germodo sought reconsideration of the order, pointing out that Section 9, Rule 14 of A.M. 07-4-15-SC,[6] fixed the appeal fee at only P1,000.00.[7] But the First Division issued another Order[8] dated May 16. 2008. denying his motion on the ground that he failed to pay the motion fees prescribed by Sec. 7(f), Rule 40 of its rules, as amended, and also for failure to state specifically that the evidence in the case was insufficient to justify the assailed order or that the same was contrary to law. Further, the First Division directed an Entry of Judgment in the case.[9]
Petitioner Germodo is before this Court on special civil action of certiorari to challenge the above orders of the COMELEC First Division.
The Questions Presented
Petitioner Germodo presents the following questions:
1. Whether or not the First Division of COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in denying Germodo's motion for reconsideration (on the ground that he failed to pay the required motion fee) rather than refer such motion to the En Banc: and
2. Ultimately, whether or not the First Division gravely abused its discretion in dismissing Germodo's appeal from the decision of the MCTC on the ground of failure to pay the required appeal fee of P3.000.00.
The Ruling of the Court
One. Although a decision or a final order of a COMELEC Division cannot be elevated directly to this Court through a special civil action of certiorari,[10] still, direct resort to this Court on certiorari may be allowed where the Division's decision or resolution sought to be set aside is a nullity[11] and recourse to the COMELEC En Banc has been shut close.
Section 3 of Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution [12]and Sections 5 and 6 Rule 19 of the COMELEC's Rules of Procedure[13] provides that motions for reconsideration of the decisions, resolutions, orders, or rulings of a Division of the COMELEC shall be decided by the Commission En Banc. When such a motion for reconsideration is filed. Section 6 of the COMELEC rules requires the presiding commissioner of the Division to certify the case to the COMELEC En Banc within two days from notice of its filing.
Here, when petitioner Germodo filed a motion for reconsideration of the First Division's order dismissing his appeal for non-payment of the appeal fee. it was the COMELEC First Division rather than the En Banc mat ruled on his motion. Yet the dismissal of Germodo's appeal was not merely interlocutory. It was a final order of dismissal. Clearly then, the First Division overstepped the limits of its powers when it usurped that of the En Banc. This Court can correct such excess in a special civil action of certiorari as this one, given that Germodo has no other plain and speedy remedy in the ordinary course of law.
Two. Regarding the First Division's dismissal of Germodo's appeal on ground of failure to pay the additional appeal fee of P3.000.00. this Court has already explained in consonance with A.M. 07-4-15-SC[14] and COMELEC Resolution 8486[l5] that such failure does not adversely affect the perfection of the appeal. Thus, the Court said in Aguilar v. Commission on Elections:[16]
Consequently, the COMELEC First Division acted with grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed petitioner Germodo's appeal outright for failure to pay the additional P3.000.00 appeal fee. Consistent with the ruling in Aguilar. the First Divison should have first directed Germodo to pay the additional appeal fee and. in the case of the motion for reconsideration, the motion fee that the rules require.
Only if petitioner Germodo refuses to pay such fees, could the First Division dismiss the appeal and the En Banc, deny the motion for reconsideration. In an election case, the court has an imperative duty to ascertain by all means within its command the real winner. The rules must be liberally construed to the end that the will of the people in the choice of public officials is not to be defeated by technical bjections.[17]
ACCORDINGLY, the Court GRANTS the petition. REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the April 3 and May 16, 2008 orders issued by the First Division of the Commission on Elections in EAC (BRGY.) 83-2008, and directs such First Division to act on petitioner Jesus Germodo's appeal from the decision of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Bindoy, Negros Oriental, in Election Case M-05-07 BGY in the manner stated in this decision."
"G.R. No. 183283 (Jesus Germodo v. The Commission on Elections First Division, Manager of the Electoral Contests Adjudication Department. COMELEC, and Gerry Zamora).
This case is about a Division of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) passing upon a motion for reconsideration of its final order that dismissed an appeal (for failure to pay the additional appeal fee) rather than referring the motion to the En Banc for resolution.
The Facts and the Case
Petitioner Jesus Germodo and respondent Gerry Zamora ran against each other for the position of Barangay Captain of Sundo-an, Manjuyod. Negros Oriental in the 2007 barangay elections. Germodo won with 373 votes as against Zamora's 370 votes. The Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed Germodo as the duly elected Barangay Captain.[1]
Upset with the results, respondent Zamora filed an election protest with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Bindoy, Negros Oriental, in Election Case M-05-07 BGY[2]On January 23, 2008, following a revision of the contested ballots, the MCTC rendered judgment, finding Zamora winner with 378 votes as against Germodo"s 377 votes. Thus, the MCTC declared respondent Zamora the proper winner.[3]
Petitioner Germodo appealed the lower court's decision to the COMELEC.[4] But on April 3. 2008 the COMELEC First Division issued an order,[5] dismissing his appeal for failure to pay the P3,000.00 appeal fee imposed under Section 3. Rule 40. and Section 9(a) of its Rules of Procedure. Germodo sought reconsideration of the order, pointing out that Section 9, Rule 14 of A.M. 07-4-15-SC,[6] fixed the appeal fee at only P1,000.00.[7] But the First Division issued another Order[8] dated May 16. 2008. denying his motion on the ground that he failed to pay the motion fees prescribed by Sec. 7(f), Rule 40 of its rules, as amended, and also for failure to state specifically that the evidence in the case was insufficient to justify the assailed order or that the same was contrary to law. Further, the First Division directed an Entry of Judgment in the case.[9]
Petitioner Germodo is before this Court on special civil action of certiorari to challenge the above orders of the COMELEC First Division.
The Questions Presented
Petitioner Germodo presents the following questions:
1. Whether or not the First Division of COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in denying Germodo's motion for reconsideration (on the ground that he failed to pay the required motion fee) rather than refer such motion to the En Banc: and
2. Ultimately, whether or not the First Division gravely abused its discretion in dismissing Germodo's appeal from the decision of the MCTC on the ground of failure to pay the required appeal fee of P3.000.00.
The Ruling of the Court
One. Although a decision or a final order of a COMELEC Division cannot be elevated directly to this Court through a special civil action of certiorari,[10] still, direct resort to this Court on certiorari may be allowed where the Division's decision or resolution sought to be set aside is a nullity[11] and recourse to the COMELEC En Banc has been shut close.
Section 3 of Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution [12]and Sections 5 and 6 Rule 19 of the COMELEC's Rules of Procedure[13] provides that motions for reconsideration of the decisions, resolutions, orders, or rulings of a Division of the COMELEC shall be decided by the Commission En Banc. When such a motion for reconsideration is filed. Section 6 of the COMELEC rules requires the presiding commissioner of the Division to certify the case to the COMELEC En Banc within two days from notice of its filing.
Here, when petitioner Germodo filed a motion for reconsideration of the First Division's order dismissing his appeal for non-payment of the appeal fee. it was the COMELEC First Division rather than the En Banc mat ruled on his motion. Yet the dismissal of Germodo's appeal was not merely interlocutory. It was a final order of dismissal. Clearly then, the First Division overstepped the limits of its powers when it usurped that of the En Banc. This Court can correct such excess in a special civil action of certiorari as this one, given that Germodo has no other plain and speedy remedy in the ordinary course of law.
Two. Regarding the First Division's dismissal of Germodo's appeal on ground of failure to pay the additional appeal fee of P3.000.00. this Court has already explained in consonance with A.M. 07-4-15-SC[14] and COMELEC Resolution 8486[l5] that such failure does not adversely affect the perfection of the appeal. Thus, the Court said in Aguilar v. Commission on Elections:[16]
The appeal to the COMELEC of the trial court's decision in election contests involving municipal and barangay officials is perfected upon the filing of the notice of appeal and the payment of the PI,000.00 appeal fee to the court that rendered the decision within the five-day reglementary period. The non-payment or the insufficient payment of the additional appeal fee of P3,200.00 to the COMELEC Cash Division, in accordance with Rule 40, Section 3 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, as amended, does not affect the perfection of the appeal and docs not result in outright or ipso facto dismissal of the appeal. Following, Rule 22. Section 9(a) of the COMELEC Rules, the appeal may be dismissed. And pursuant to Rule 40, Section 18 of the same rules, if the fees are not paid, the COMELEC may refuse to take action thereon until they are paid and may dismiss the action or the proceeding. In such a situation, the COMELEC is merely given the discretion to dismiss the appeal or not.
Consequently, the COMELEC First Division acted with grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed petitioner Germodo's appeal outright for failure to pay the additional P3.000.00 appeal fee. Consistent with the ruling in Aguilar. the First Divison should have first directed Germodo to pay the additional appeal fee and. in the case of the motion for reconsideration, the motion fee that the rules require.
Only if petitioner Germodo refuses to pay such fees, could the First Division dismiss the appeal and the En Banc, deny the motion for reconsideration. In an election case, the court has an imperative duty to ascertain by all means within its command the real winner. The rules must be liberally construed to the end that the will of the people in the choice of public officials is not to be defeated by technical bjections.[17]
ACCORDINGLY, the Court GRANTS the petition. REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the April 3 and May 16, 2008 orders issued by the First Division of the Commission on Elections in EAC (BRGY.) 83-2008, and directs such First Division to act on petitioner Jesus Germodo's appeal from the decision of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Bindoy, Negros Oriental, in Election Case M-05-07 BGY in the manner stated in this decision."
Very truly yours.
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo. p, 18.
[2] Id.
[3] Id. at 46.
[4] Id. at 47.
[5] Id. at 70.
[6] Sec.9. Appeal fee.- The appellant in an election contest shall pay to the court that rendered the decision an appeal lee of One Thousand Pesos (P1.000.00), simultaneously with the filing of the notice of appeal.
[7] Id at 64.
[8] Id. at 73.
[9] Id.
[10] Section 7. Article IX-A of the Constitution reads: Section 7. Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote of all its Members any case or matter brought before it within sixty days from the date of its submission for decision or resolution. A case or matter is deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief or memorandum required by the rules of the Commission or by the Commission itself. Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law. any decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof.
[11] ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v. Commission on Elections. 380 Phil. 780. 789 (2000).
[12] Sec 3. The Commission on Elections may sit en bane or in two divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of procedure in order to expedite disposition of election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies. All Mich election cases shall be heard and decided in division, provided that motions for reconsideration o' decisions shall be decided bv the Commission en banc.
[13] Sec. 5. How Motion for Reconsideration Disposed Of.- Upon the filing of a motion to reconsider a decision, resolution, order or ruling of a Division, the Clerk of Court concerned shall, within twenty-four (24) hours from the filing thereof, notify the Presiding Commissioner. The latter shall within two (2) days thereafter certify the case to the Commission en banc.
Sec. 6. Duty of the Clerk of Court of Commission to Calendar Motion for Reconsideration.- The Clerk of Court concerned shall calendar the motion for reconsideration for the resolution of the Commission en hone within ten (10) days from the certification thereof.
[14] Rules of Procedure in Election Contests before the Courts Involving Elective Municipal and Barangay Officials, promulgated on April 24. 2007 and became effective on May 15. 2007.
[15] Entitled "In the Matter of Clarifying the Implementation of COMELEC Rules Re: Payment of Filing Fees for Appealed Cases Involving Barangay and Municipal Elective Positions From the Municipal Trial Courts. Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. Metropolitan Trial Courts and Regional Trial Courts." issued on July 15. 2008
[16] G.R. No. 185140. June 30. 2009.
[17] Duremdes v. Commission on Elections. G.R. Nos. 86362-63. October 27. 1989. 178 SCRA 746. 759. citing Juliano v. Court of Appeals, 127 Phil. 207.219(1967).
