Title
Aguilar vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. 185140
Decision Date
Jun 30, 2009
Jerry Aguilar won by one vote in a barangay election; Romulo Insoy protested. COMELEC dismissed Aguilar's appeal over fee discrepancies. Supreme Court ruled COMELEC acted without jurisdiction, annulled orders, and remanded the case, emphasizing liberal interpretation of election laws.
Font Size:

Case Summary (G.R. No. 185140)

Background of the Case

  • Jerry B. Aguilar won the chairmanship of Brgy. Bansarvil, Kapatagan, Lanao del Norte, in the October 2007 barangay elections by a margin of one vote over Romulo R. Insoy.
  • Insoy filed an election protest (Election Case No. 516) in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Kapatagan, contesting the election results.
  • The MTC ruled in favor of Insoy on April 17, 2008, declaring him the duly elected punong barangay and ordering Aguilar to vacate the office.

Appeal Process Initiated by Aguilar

  • Aguilar filed a notice of appeal on April 21, 2008, and paid the appeal fee of P1,000.00, as required by the newly promulgated A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC.
  • The records were elevated to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), which issued an order on July 31, 2008, dismissing Aguilar's appeal for failure to pay the correct appeal fee of P3,000.00 within the prescribed period.

COMELEC's Orders and Aguilar's Motions for Reconsideration

  • Aguilar filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the correct fee was P1,000.00, but the COMELEC First Division denied this motion on September 4, 2008, citing failure to pay a P700.00 motion fee.
  • Aguilar subsequently filed another motion for reconsideration, asserting that the orders were null and void as they were issued by a division rather than the COMELEC en banc.

Jurisdictional Issues and Violations

  • The COMELEC First Division issued a third order on October 6, 2008, denying Aguilar's second motion for reconsideration and declaring the previous orders final and executory.
  • The Court noted that the orders were issued by a division of the COMELEC, which is contrary to the constitutional requirement that motions for reconsideration must be resolved by the COMELEC en banc.

Constitutional and Procedural Framework

  • Article IX-C, Section 3 of the Constitution mandates that motions for reconsideration of decisions must be decided by the COMELEC en banc.
  • The COMELEC Rules of Procedure further stipulate that the Clerk of Court must notify the Presiding Commissioner to certify the case to the en banc within a specified timeframe.

Grave Abuse of Discretion by COMELEC

  • The Court found that the COMELEC First Division acted with grave abuse of discretion by dismissing Aguilar's appeal without following the proper constitutional and procedural protocols.
  • The dismissal was deemed an exercise of judgment in excess of jurisdiction, as the division usurped the en banc's authority.

Clarification of Appeal Fee Requirements

  • The Court examined the rules regarding appeal fees, noting that the P1,000.00 fee is paid to the trial court, while the P3,2...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.