February 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 198559 : February 21, 2012]
ARSENIA J. LIM VS. HON. COMMISSION ON ELECTION AND DESIREE S. EDORA.
"G.R. No. 198559 (Arsenia J. Lim vs. Hon. Commission on Election and Desiree S. Edora). - Herein petitioner Arsenia J. Lim (Lim) and private respondent Desiree S. Edora (Edora) were candidates for the position of Mayor of the Municipality of Masinloc, Iba, Zambales in the May 2010 elections. Edora emerged as the winner.
On May 17, 2010, Lim filed a Petition to Annul Proclamation of Edora with the Commission on Election (COMELEC) which was denied in a Resolution dated July 19, 2010. Lim moved for the reconsideration thereof but the same was likewise denied for lack of merit in a Resolution dated September 21, 2010.
On September 27, 2010, Lim filed an election protest with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 71, Iba, Zambales, praying that the proclamation of Edora as the duly elected Mayor of Masinloc, Zambales, during the May 2010 elections be annulled and set aside.
On November 3, 2010, the RTC rendered a resolution[1] dismissing the election protest for lack of jurisdiction. The RTC stated that the filing of the case for annulment of proclamation with the COMELEC did not suspend the running of the prescriptive period for filing an election protest.[2] It added that what the petitioner filed was not in the nature of a pre-proclamation controversy which would otherwise suspend the running of the period for the filing of an election protest.[3]
The petitioner filed a notice of appeal[4] via LBC Door- to-door delivery to the Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC which was received by the latter on November 12, 2010 together with the appeal fee in the amount of P1,000.00.
The court a quo thereafter directed[5] the clerk of court to forward the entire records of the petitioner's case to the COMELEC.
On January 10, 2011, the COMELEC issued the assailed Order[6] dismissing the appeal stating, among others, that while the filing of a notice of appeal and the payment of P1,000.00 is in accordance with the provision of A.M. No. 10-4-1 SC dated April 27, 2010, the petitioner is required to pay the prescribed COMELEC appeal fee in the amount of P3,550.00[7] within 15 days from the filing of the Notice of Appeal.
The COMELEC added that while the petitioner was able to file his notice of appeal and pay the necessary appeal fee of P1,000.00 before the court a quo, payment of the required COMELEC appeal fee in the amount of P3,550.00 was made by the petitioner on December 10, 2010 or thirteen (13) days beyond the prescribed period.
The petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the assailed COMELEC ruling citing several cases where this Court applied a liberal application of the rules regarding the payment of the prescribed COMELEC fees.
On September 20, 2011, the COMELEC denied[8] the petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
Hence, the instant petition for certiorari was filed on October 3, 2011.[9]
Settled is the rule that the perfection of an appeal within the statutory or reglementary period is not only mandatory, but also jurisdictional.[10] While the notice of appeal with the trial court was accompanied by the payment of the appeal fee of P1,000.00, the petitioner failed to file the prescribed COMELEC appeal fee of P3,550.00 within fifteen (15) days from the time of the filing of the notice of appeal. The case of Divinagracia v. COMELEC[11] is instructional on the matter as it stressed that if the appellant had already paid the amount of P1,000.00 to the lower courts within the five-day reglementary period, they are further required to pay to the COMELEC, through its Cash Division, the appeal fee of P3,200.00 within fifteen (15) days from the time of the filing of the notice of appeal with the lower court. In Divinagracia, this Court further stressed that for notices of appeal filed after the promulgation thereof, errors in the non-payment of the two appeal fees in election cases are no longer excusable. cralaw
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED."
Velasco, Jr., J., on official business.
Brion and Del Castillo, JJ., on leave.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 26-29.[2] Section 7 of A.M. No. 10-4-1 SC (2010 Rules of Procedure in Election Contests Before the Court Involving Elective Municipal Officials).
[3] Section 8, id.
[4] Rollo, pp. 30-32.
[5] Id. at 33.
[6] Id. at 19-20.
[7] Sec. 3, Rule 40 of Comelec Rules of Procedure as amended by Comelec Resolution No. 02-0130 (September 18, 2002). The fees are broken down as follows: Appeal fee = P3,000.00; Bailiff fee = P500.00 (as amended by Comelec Minute Resolution No. 09-04-16), Legal Research Fee = P50.00
[8] Id. at 21-25.
[9] Id. at 3-18.
[10] Arnulfo A. Aguilar v. Court of Appeals, Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 172986, October 2, 2009, 602 SCRA 336, 347.
[11] G.R. Nos. 186007 & 186016, July 27, 2009, 594 SCRA 147.