Case Digest (G.R. No. 209415-17)
Facts:
Jocelyn "Joy" Lim-Bungcaras, et al., G.R. Nos. 209415-17 and Aldrin B. Pamaos, G.R. No. 210002, November 15, 2016, Supreme Court En Banc, Leonardo‑De Castro, J., writing for the Court. The consolidated petitions arose from election protests after the May 10, 2010 automated elections in Saint Bernard, Southern Leyte, where petitioners and several private respondents competed for mayor, vice‑mayor and Sangguniang Bayan seats.During the canvass, respondents Rico C. Rentuza and Rachel B. Avendula were proclaimed winners for mayor and vice‑mayor respectively, and private respondents Calapre, Cinco, Salas, Dalugdugan, Japon, Santiago, Malubay and Bungcag were declared the eight winning councilors. The losing candidates (petitioners) filed election protests in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Juan, Southern Leyte: Election Protest Nos. 2010‑01 (Lim‑Bungcaras), 2010‑02 (Castil), and 2010‑03 (Pamaos, Avendula, Domingo Ramada Jr., Victor Ramada).
On November 17, 2010 the RTC (Acting Judge Rolando L. Gonzalez) issued a Consolidated Decision dismissing the three protests and granting the private respondents’ compulsory counterclaims, awarding in favor of each private respondent moral damages (Php400,000.00) and attorney’s fees (Php150,000.00). The petitioners filed notices of appeal and paid the P1,000.00 appeal fee to the RTC on November 22–23, 2010; they separately attempted to pay the COMELEC appeal fee to the Commission via postal money order on December 7, 2010.
The COMELEC First Division, however, issued three Orders dated February 1, 2011 dismissing the appeals for failure to pay the COMELEC appeal fee within the reglementary period, applying Section 4, Rule 40 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. Petitioners sought reconsideration before the COMELEC En Banc, which denied the motions in a Resolution dated September 6, 2013 on the ground that the contested offices’ terms had expired on June 30, 2013, rendering the appeals moot; an Entry of Judgment followed on September 9, 2013.
Petitioners filed petitions for certiorari (Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65) before the Supreme Court, challenging (a) the COMELEC First Division’s February 1, 2011 Orders dismissing the appeals for non‑payment of the COMELEC fee, and (b) the COMELEC En Banc’s September 6, 2013 Resolution denying reconsideration as moot. The Court consolidated the petitions (February 24, 2015); Pa...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Procedural: Did the petitioners timely perfect their appeals by paying the required appeal fees to the COMELEC within the applicable reglementary period?
- Procedural/Substantive: Were the issues raised in the petitioners’ motions for reconsideration before the COMELEC En Banc rendered moot by the expiration of the terms of the contested offices?
- Substantive: Were the RTC’s awards of moral damages and attorney’s fees lawful and supported ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)