Case Digest (G.R. No. 158610)
Facts:
Esteban M. Zamoras v. Commission on Elections (First Division) and Bartolome Bastasa, G.R. No. 158610, November 12, 2004, Supreme Court En Banc, Carpio, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Esteban M. Zamoras sought certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure to annul several orders of the Commission on Elections First Division (COMELEC) in EAC No. 4-2003: the Order dated 10 March 2003 dismissing his appeal, the Order dated 4 April 2003 denying his motion for reconsideration, and the Order and Entry of Judgment dated 8 May 2003 and 12 May 2003, respectively.In the July 15, 2002 barangay elections for Barangay Galas, Dipolog City, private respondent Bartolome Bastasa was proclaimed punong barangay with 1,891 votes against Zamoras’ 1,836. Zamoras filed an election protest in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Dipolog City (Election Case No. 3559), alleging fraud in nine precincts and praying for revision/recount. On November 4, 2002, the MTCC rendered a decision declaring Bastasa to have garnered 212 votes and Zamoras 11 votes; the MTCC dismissed the protest.
Zamoras filed a notice of appeal with the MTCC. The COMELEC Judicial Records Division, by notice dated January 17, 2003, informed Zamoras that he had paid only P600 as appeal fee and that the correct total payable under COMELEC Resolution No. 02-0130 (September 18, 2002) was P3,000 as appeal fee plus P50 legal research fee and P150 bailiff’s fee (total P3,200), leaving a deficiency of P2,600 to be paid within three days. Zamoras allegedly received the Judicial Records Division’s deficiency notice on January 28, 2003 and remitted the P2,600 by postal money order on that same day.
On March 10, 2003, the COMELEC First Division (composed of Commissioners Rufino S. Javier, Luzviminda G. Tancangco and Resurreccion Z. Borra) issued an order dismissing Zamoras’ appeal for failure to perfect his appeal within the five-day reglementary period under Sections 3 and 9(d), Rule 22 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure. Zamoras filed a motion for reconsideration by registered mail on March 21, 2003; the COMELEC denied that motion on April 4, 2003 for failure to pay requisite motion fees under Sec. 7(f), Rule 40. The COMEL...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the COMELEC gravely abuse its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing Zamoras’ appeal for failure to pay the correct appeal fee within the reglementary period?
- Did the COMELEC gravely abuse its discretion in denying Zamoras’ motion for reconsideration for failure to pay t...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)