Case Summary (G.R. No. 135869)
Facts of the Case
Antonio and Miranda were rival candidates for Barangay Ilaya chairman. After Antonio was proclaimed winner, Miranda filed an election protest with the Metropolitan Trial Court. The trial court declared Miranda duly elected on March 9, 1998. Antonio received a copy on March 18 and filed his Notice of Appeal on March 27 (nine days later). The trial court denied execution pending appeal and forwarded the record to the COMELEC. On August 3, 1998, the COMELEC Second Division dismissed Antonio’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, citing failure to file within five days. The COMELEC en banc denied reconsideration on October 14, 1998.
Position of the Petitioner
Antonio argued that:
• Sections 9 of RA 6679 and 252 of the Omnibus Election Code prescribe a ten-day appeal period.
• The COMELEC Rules’ five-day period cannot override express statutory provisions.
• The COMELEC denied due process by dismissing motu proprio without briefs or hearing.
• Technicalities should not bar resolution of the electorate’s true will, especially in a four-vote margin.
COMELEC Rationale
The COMELEC invoked its constitutional authority under the 1987 Constitution to promulgate procedural rules that do not alter substantive rights. It maintained that its 1993 Rules of Procedure, as amended, uniformly prescribed a five-day period for appeal from court decisions in election protests. Per Rule 35, Section 21, failure to perfect the appeal within five days divests the Commission of jurisdiction, making the period jurisdictional and mandatory.
Supreme Court Analysis
The Court unanimously affirmed the COMELEC orders. It confirmed that legislative enactments generally prevail over administrative rules, but the COMELEC Rules of Procedure were promulgated under the Constitution’s grant of authority (Article IX-A, Section 6; Article IX-C, Section 3) and remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court (Article VIII, Section 5).
Jurisprudential Precedents
Flores v. Commission on Elections (184 SCRA 484) declared unconstitutional the portion of RA 6679 and the Omnibus Election Code that provided for appeal to the Regional Trial Court, thereby eliminating that remedy. Subsequent decisions (Rodillas v. COMELEC, Calucag v. COMELEC) consistently recognized the COMELEC Rules of Procedure as controlling for appeals in election protests and reaffirmed the five-day rule.
On Separability and Consequence of Flores
Petitioner’s argument that the ten-day period survives apart from the stricken jurisdictional provision was rejected. The Court applied the exception to separability: the time period is inseparable from the remedy and cannot stand independently once the appellate forum was declared void. The appellate remedy itself was invalidated i
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 135869)
Facts
- Rustico H. Antonio and Vicente T. Miranda, Jr. were rival candidates for Punong Barangay of Barangay Ilaya, Las Piñas City, Metro Manila.
- The Board of Canvassers proclaimed Antonio the winner.
- Miranda filed Election Protest No. 97-0017 before the Metropolitan Trial Court (Branch LXXIX) of Las Piñas City.
- On March 9, 1998, the trial court rendered a decision declaring Miranda as the duly elected Barangay Chairman.
- Antonio admitted receipt of that decision on March 18, 1998.
Trial-Court Appeal and Execution Proceedings
- Antonio filed a Notice of Appeal on March 27, 1998—nine days after receipt of the decision.
- Miranda moved for execution of the trial court’s decision; Antonio opposed, arguing execution must await appeal.
- The trial court denied the motion for execution and forwarded the records to the COMELEC Second Division.
COMELEC Second Division Order (August 3, 1998)
- Citing Section 21, Rule 35 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, the Second Division held that appeals must be perfected within five days after promulgation.
- Antonio’s notice, filed on the ninth day, was held late and jurisdictionally defective.
- The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
COMELEC En Banc Resolution (October 14, 1998)
- Antonio’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
- The En Banc affirmed the Second Division’s dismissal on the same grounds.
Issue
- Whether the period to perfect an appeal from a municipal trial-court decision in a barangay election protest is five days under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure or ten days as provided in Republic Act No. 6679 and Section 252 of the Omnibus Election Code.
Petitioner’s Contentions
- In barangay election protests, the aggrieved may appeal within ten days under:
• Section 9 of RA 6679, and
• Sec