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...

Facts:

Background of the Election Contest

• In the October 2007 barangay elections in Brgy. Bansarvil 1, Kapatagan, Lanao del Norte, petitioner Jerry B. Aguilar was declared the winner by a margin of one vote over private respondent Romulo R. Insoy.
• Following the extremely narrow margin, Insoy filed an election protest (docketed as Election Case No. 516) in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Kapatagan questioning the results.

Trial Court Decision and Appeal

• On April 17, 2008, the MTC rendered a decision finding that Insoy, who obtained 265 votes against Aguilar’s 264, was the duly elected punong barangay, thereby nullifying Aguilar’s proclamation.
• Aguilar, aggrieved by the decision, filed a notice of appeal with the trial court on April 21, 2008 and simultaneously paid the appeal fee of P1,000.00, in compliance with Section 9 of Rule 14 under A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC.

COMELEC’s Procedural Actions

• Upon receiving the trial court records, the COMELEC First Division issued an Order on July 31, 2008 dismissing Aguilar’s appeal for failure to pay the additional required appeal fee of P3,200.00, as prescribed by Sections 3 and 4, Rule 40 of the COMELEC Rules, and Section 9(a), Rule 22.
• In response, Aguilar filed a motion for reconsideration arguing that only the payment of P1,000.00 (as required by the newly promulgated A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC) was necessary at the trial court level.
• The COMELEC First Division sustained its action by issuing a second Order on September 4, 2008, denying the motion for reconsideration due to non-payment of the complete P700.00 motion fee.
• A subsequent motion for reconsideration was again filed by Aguilar, contending that the resolution of his motion should have been handled by the COMELEC en banc, not by the division.
• On October 6, 2008, the COMELEC First Division issued a third Order denying Aguilar’s second motion as a prohibited pleading, thereby finalizing the dismissal of his appeal.
• On October 16, 2008, the Entry of Judgment was issued by the COMELEC First Division, effectively ousting Aguilar from office.

Procedural and Jurisdictional Controversies

• The central controversy arose from the fact that the orders dismissing the appeal and denying the motions for reconsideration were issued by the COMELEC First Division rather than the COMELEC en banc, contrary to the constitutional requirement.
• The Constitution (Article IX-C, Section 3) and the COMELEC Rules of Procedure mandate that motions for reconsideration of decisions or orders by a division must be elevated and decided by the COMELEC en banc.
• Additional confusion was created by the clarificatory COMELEC Resolution No. 8486, issued on July 15, 2008, which set guidelines regarding the payment of appeal fees and administrative fees, resulting in the dismissal of Aguilar’s appeal based on technical non-compliance.

Issue:

Jurisdictional and Procedural Authority

• Whether the COMELEC First Division had the authority to resolve motions for reconsideration itself, instead of referring them to the COMELEC en banc as required by constitutional and procedural mandates.
• Whether the dismissal of Aguilar’s appeal for non-payment of the additional P3,200.00 appeal fee was proper, especially given that the notice of appeal and the P1,000 fee had already been filed and the appeal was perfected at the trial court level.

Application of COMELEC Rules and Administrative Orders

• Whether the COMELEC, by relying on the newly issued Resolution No. 8486 and dismissing the appeal solely for the non-payment of the additional fee, acted in accordance with the rules on the payment of appeal fees.
• Whether the COMELEC First Division’s actions to dismiss the appeal and resolve motions for reconsideration constituted a grave abuse of discretion that deprived Aguilar of his rightful due process and the opportunity to be heard by the en banc.

Impact on Election Law and the Will of the Electorate

• Whether the technical dismissal of an appeal, where the margin of victory was as narrow as one vote, frustrates the essential objective of respecting the will of the electorate and ensuring fairness in election contests.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)