Case Digest (G.R. No. 185140)
Facts:
The case involves Jerry B. Aguilar as the petitioner and the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) along with Romulo R. Insoy as the respondents. The events leading to this case began during the barangay elections held in October 2007, where Aguilar was declared the winner for the chairmanship of Barangay Bansarvil 1, Kapatagan, Lanao del Norte, defeating Insoy by a narrow margin of one vote. Insoy, contesting the results, filed an election protest, which was assigned as Election Case No. 516 in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Kapatagan. On April 17, 2008, the MTC ruled in favor of Insoy, declaring him the duly elected punong barangay after a revision of votes showed Insoy with 265 votes against Aguilar's 264. Following this decision, Aguilar filed a notice of appeal on April 21, 2008, and paid the appeal fee of P1,000.00, as stipulated in the newly promulgated A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC, which governs election contests. However, upon receiving the records from the trial court, t...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 185140)
Facts:
Election Results and Initial Protest
- In the October 2007 barangay elections, Jerry B. Aguilar won the chairmanship of Barangay Bansarvil 1, Kapatagan, Lanao del Norte, by a margin of one vote over Romulo R. Insoy.
- Insoy filed an election protest (Election Case No. 516) in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Kapatagan.
- On April 17, 2008, the MTC ruled in favor of Insoy, finding that he garnered 265 votes against Aguilar's 264 votes. The court nullified Aguilar's proclamation and ordered him to vacate the office.
Appeal to the COMELEC
- Aguilar filed a notice of appeal on April 21, 2008, and paid the P1,000.00 appeal fee to the MTC, as required under A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC (Rules of Procedure in Election Contests Before the Courts Involving Elective Municipal and Barangay Officials).
- The COMELEC First Division dismissed Aguilar's appeal on July 31, 2008, citing his failure to pay the P3,000.00 appeal fee as required under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure.
Motion for Reconsideration
- Aguilar filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the P1,000.00 fee under A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC was sufficient.
- The COMELEC First Division denied the motion on September 4, 2008, citing Aguilar's failure to pay the P700.00 motion fee.
- Aguilar filed a second motion for reconsideration, arguing that the COMELEC First Division had no authority to resolve the motion, as it should have been elevated to the COMELEC en banc.
- The COMELEC First Division denied the second motion on October 6, 2008, declaring it a prohibited pleading and stating that the July 31, 2008 Order was final and executory.
Petition to the Supreme Court
- Aguilar filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, challenging the COMELEC First Division's orders.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- (Unlock)
Ratio:
Authority of COMELEC Divisions vs. En Banc:
- Under Article IX-C, Section 3 of the Constitution, motions for reconsideration of decisions by a COMELEC division must be resolved by the COMELEC en banc.
- The COMELEC First Division's resolution of Aguilar's motion for reconsideration was a violation of this constitutional mandate, rendering its orders null and void.
Perfection of Appeal:
- The appeal was perfected upon the filing of the notice of appeal and payment of the P1,000.00 fee to the MTC, as required under A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC.
- The failure to pay the additional P3,200.00 fee to the COMELEC did not affect the perfection of the appeal, and the COMELEC had the discretion to either dismiss the appeal or require payment of the fee.
Grave Abuse of Discretion:
- The COMELEC First Division's dismissal of the appeal without giving Aguilar an opportunity to comply with the additional fee requirement was arbitrary and capricious.
- The Court emphasized that election cases should be resolved liberally to give effect to the will of the electorate, especially in close contests like this one, where only one vote separated the candidates.
Conclusion:
- The Supreme Court annulled and set aside the COMELEC First Division's orders and remanded the case for proper disposition.
- The Court reiterated that election laws and rules should be interpreted liberally to ensure that the will of the electorate prevails.