G.R. No. 258449 - Juan Juan Olila Ollesca vs. Commission on Elections

On October 7, 2021, Juan Juan Olila Ollesca filed his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to run for President in the May 9, 2022 National and Local Elections as an independent candidate, declaring himself an entrepreneur.
On October 21, 2021, the COMELEC Law Department motu proprio filed a petition to declare Ollesca a nuisance candidate, contending that he was virtually unknown outside his locality, lacked financial capacity to mount a nationwide campaign, and thus had no bona fide intention to run.
Ollesca was ordered to file an answer; on November 2, 2021, he filed his Answer cum Memorandum denying the allegations, arguing that the petition was based on baseless speculations and an unconstitutional property qualification.

On December 13, 2021, the COMELEC Second Division resolved to grant the petition, declaring Ollesca a nuisance candidate for lack of financial capability and bona fide intention to run, thus canceling his COC.
Ollesca received the Resolution on December 15, 2021, and timely filed a Motion for Reconsideration on December 20, 2021, via email, also paying the assessed fees on December 21, 2021.
The COMELEC En Banc, on January 3, 2022, denied the Motion for Reconsideration as filed beyond the five-day reglementary period and for failure to timely pay filing fees.

Ollesca filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court, arguing grave abuse of discretion in denying his Motion and in declaring him as a nuisance candidate.
He contended that financial capacity is not a valid ground to dismiss candidacy, and that he paid the fees and filed timely.
The COMELEC counters that the case is moot and the denial was proper; their decision was based on evidence, and they considered financial capacity along with other factors in determining bona fide intention.

Previous cases such as Marquez (2019), De Alban, and Marquez (2022) established that financial capacity cannot be equated with or imposed as a property qualification to determine bona fide intention.
The COMELEC must substantiate with evidence the lack of bona fide intention, which is the absence of a genuine intention to run for public office.

COMELEC rules prescribe a five-day period for filing motions for reconsideration, counted from the time of electronic transmission.
Denying a motion for failure to simultaneously pay fees is improper if fees are paid belatedly but within reason.
The case became moot after the 2022 elections but is capable of repetition yet evading review.

Whether the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Ollesca was timely under COMELEC rules and jurisprudence.
Whether COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in declaring Ollesca as a nuisance candidate.