Case Digest (G.R. No. 196355)
Facts:
Bienvenido William D. Lloren v. The Commission on Elections and Rogelio Pua, Jr., G.R. No. 196355, September 18, 2012, the Supreme Court En Banc, Bersamin, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Bienvenido William D. Lloren and respondent Rogelio Pua, Jr. were opposing candidates for Vice-Mayor of Inopacan, Leyte in the May 10, 2010 elections; the Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed Pua the winner by a plurality of votes. Alleging vote‑buying, intimidation, defective PCOS machines and other irregularities, Lloren filed Election Protest Case No. H-026 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Hilongos, Leyte.In his answer Pua assailed the protest as insufficient in form and content and alleged failure to pay the required cash deposit. On November 12, 2010 the RTC dismissed the election protest for insufficiency in form and substance and for failure to pay the required cash deposit. Lloren filed a notice of appeal in the RTC on November 17, 2010 and paid an appeal fee of P1,000.00 to that court; the RTC gave due course to the appeal on November 24, 2010. On December 2, 2010 Lloren remitted P3,200.00 to the COMELEC Electoral Contests Adjudication Department (ECAD) by postal money order.
On January 31, 2011 the COMELEC First Division dismissed the appeal, holding that petitioner failed to pay the COMELEC appeal fee within the period set by Section 4, Rule 40 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure and citing Divinagracia v. COMELEC. Petitioner moved for reconsideration on February 14, 2011 and sent a notice dated March 3, 2011 stating he had paid the P300.00 motion fee by postal money order. On March 16, 2011 the COMELEC En Banc denied the motion for reconsideration on the ground that petitioner failed to pay the motion fee as required under Section 7(f), Rule 40, and directed the ECAD clerk to issue an entry of judgment.
Petitioner filed this special civil action for certiorari to annul the COMELEC First Division and COMELEC En Banc orders. The petition challenged the timeliness of his payments unde...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the COMELEC commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner’s appeal and denying his motion for reconsideration by treating his payment of appeal and motion fees as untimely under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure?
- On the merits, was the RTC’s dismissal of petitioner’s election protest for insufficiency in form and insufficient cash deposit correct...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)