G.R. No. 146511 - Ang vs. Associated Bank

Both Mateo R. Nollen, Jr. (petitioner) and Susana M. Caballes (respondent) were candidates for punong barangay of Gibanga, Sariaya, Quezon in the October 29, 2007 barangay elections.
Nollen initially garnered 456 votes, narrowly edging Caballes who obtained 448 votes, which led to his declaration as the punong barangay‐elect.

Dissatisfied with the vote count, Caballes instituted an election protest before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) in Sariaya, Quezon.
On June 3, 2008, the MTC rendered a decision declaring Caballes as the punong barangay‐elect, basing its findings on a revised vote count — awarding Caballes 456 votes against Nollen’s 451 votes.

Unwilling to accept defeat, Nollen filed a notice of appeal on June 5, 2008 and remitted an appeal fee of PhP 1,000 to the MTC.
After the elevation of the MTC’s records to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), the First Division, by Order dated September 22, 2008 (EAC BRGY 360-2008), dismissed Nollen’s appeal for his alleged failure to pay the additional appeal fee of PhP 3,000 prescribed by Sections 3 and 4, Rule 40 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure within the required five-day reglementary period.
Nollen then moved for reconsideration, arguing that his initial payment of PhP 1,000 should be deemed sufficient and that requiring the additional fee, along with a bailiff fee of PhP 200, denied him his due process rights.
Despite his earlier contention, Nollen voluntarily paid the additional PhP 3,200 (which comprised the prescribed fee plus the bailiff fee) on October 6, 2008.

The COMELEC En Banc, by Resolution dated April 2, 2009, denied Nollen’s motion for reconsideration.
In reaching its decision, the COMELEC En Banc cited prior jurisprudence, including Zamoras v. COMELEC, to support the rule that an appeal is perfected only upon full payment of the filing fee.
The case also involved contrasting existing practices — where incomplete payment of COMELEC-imposed fees had been correctible — with more recent guidelines requiring the separate payment of a PhP 1,000 fee to the trial court and an additional PhP 3,200 fee to the COMELEC Cash Division.

Whether the COMELEC acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction by dismissing Nollen’s appeal based on the alleged failure to timely pay the additional appeal fee.
Whether the denial of Nollen’s motion for reconsideration amounted to a grave abuse of discretion due to the procedural interplay between the timely payment of the PhP 1,000 fee at the trial court and the additional, separately prescribed fee of PhP 3,200.
Whether the dual fee requirements under the Rules of Court and COMELEC Rules of Procedure should affect the perfection of the appeal, particularly given the remedial opportunity provided for paying deficiencies.