Title
Lim-Bungcaras vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. 209415-17
Decision Date
Nov 15, 2016
Petitioners contested 2010 election results; appeals dismissed for untimely fees. SC ruled some appeals valid, nullified damages, upheld procedural compliance.
election protest case
appeal
dismissal

Case Summary (G.R. No. 227004)

Factual Background: The May 10, 2010 Election and the Election Protests

During the May 10, 2010 Automated Elections, respondent Rico C. Rentuza was proclaimed winner for mayor over petitioner Lim-Bungcaras, and respondent Rachel B. Avendula was proclaimed winner for vice mayor over petitioner Castil. For Sangguniang Bayan members, respondents Calapre, Cinco, Salas, Dalugdugan, Japon, Santiago, Malubay, and Bungcag were declared winners as they received the eight highest numbers of votes. Petitioners Pamaos, Avendula, Domingo Ramada, Jr., and Victor Ramada received lower vote totals.

The protests were lodged with the RTC: Lim-Bungcaras filed Election Protest No. 2010-01, Castil filed Election Protest No. 2010-02, and the protests of Pamaos, Avendula, Domingo Ramada, Jr., and Victor Ramada were docketed as Election Protest No. 2010-03. After the private respondents’ Verified Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim, the RTC conducted preliminary conference and trial, then issued a Consolidated Decision dated November 17, 2010.

RTC Consolidated Decision and Monetary Awards

The RTC’s Consolidated Decision declared the private respondents the rightful winners for the local elective positions and dismissed the three election protests with costs against the protestants. It likewise granted the counterclaims by ordering payments of moral damages and attorney’s fees. Specifically, Lim-Bungcaras was ordered to pay Rico C. Rentuza moral damages of Php400,000.00 and attorney’s fees of Php150,000.00; Castil was ordered to pay Rachel B. Avendula the same amounts; and Pamaos, Avendula, Domingo Ramada, Jr., and Victor Ramada were ordered to pay jointly and severally (in solidum) moral damages of Php400,000.00 for each of them and attorney’s fees of Php150,000.00 to the private respondents.

Perfection of Appeals: Notices of Appeal and Payment of Appeal Fees

After receiving the RTC decision on the day of promulgation, the petitioners jointly filed a Notice of Appeal and paid the appeal fee to the RTC on November 22, 2010. Petitioners’ appeal was then granted due course by the RTC. Pamaos, who allegedly received the RTC judgment only on November 18, 2010, filed his Notice of Appeal and paid P1,020.00 as appeal fee to the RTC on November 23, 2010.

Before the COMELEC, the appeals were docketed as EAC (AE) No. A-57-2010 for Lim-Bungcaras, EAC (AE) No. A-58-2010 for Castil, and EAC (AE) No. A-59-2010 for the appeals of Pamaos, Avendula, Domingo Ramada, Jr., and Victor Ramada. On December 7, 2010, the petitioners manifested that they had paid P3,550.00 to the COMELEC Electoral Contests Adjudication Department (ECAD) through postal money order.

COMELEC First Division: Dismissal for Non-Payment or Incomplete Payment

On February 1, 2011, the COMELEC First Division issued three similarly worded Orders dismissing the petitioners’ appeals for failure to pay the required COMELEC appeal fees within the reglementary period. The First Division relied on Section 4, Rule 40 and Section 9, Rule 22 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, and invoked the Supreme Court ruling in Divinagracia vs. COMELEC (G.R. Nos. 186007 & 186016, July 27, 2009), which held that errors in non-payment or incomplete payment after the promulgation of that ruling were no longer excusable.

In EAC (AE) No. A-57-2010, the COMELEC First Division found that Lim-Bungcaras paid the COMELEC appeal fee through postal money order on December 7, 2010, but treated it as fifteen (15) days late from the last day of the reglementary period. In EAC (AE) No. A-58-2010, the COMELEC found that Castil failed to tender the COMELEC appeal fee at all. In EAC (AE) No. A-59-2010, it ruled that while Pamaos paid on December 7, 2010, payment was beyond the reglementary period, and that Avendula, Domingo Ramada, Jr., and Victor Ramada failed to pay.

COMELEC En Banc: Denial of Motions for Reconsideration and Entry of Judgment

Petitioners sought reversal before the COMELEC En Banc by filing Joint Motions for Reconsideration, while Pamaos filed his own. The COMELEC En Banc denied the motions in a Resolution dated September 6, 2013, holding that the motions had been rendered moot because the terms of the contested offices had already expired on June 30, 2013. The ECAD then issued an Entry of Judgment on September 9, 2013.

Issues Raised in the Petitions for Certiorari

The petitioners filed certiorari petitions with the Supreme Court, later consolidated in a resolution dated February 24, 2015. They challenged the COMELEC’s dismissal of their appeals, insisting they had duly perfected their appeals by paying the COMELEC appeal fee of P3,550.00 via postal money order on December 7, 2010, which they argued was within fifteen (15) days from filing of the notice of appeal under COMELEC Resolution No. 8486. They also contested the COMELEC En Banc’s finding of mootness, arguing that they sought appellate review not only of the election protest outcomes but also of the RTC’s imposition of allegedly exorbitant damages without factual or legal basis.

The COMELEC and private respondents countered that there was no grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeals because the appeal fee had not been paid within the reglementary period. They argued that COMELEC Resolution No. 8486 applied only to notices of appeal filed on or before July 27, 2009 and that for later notices, Section 4, Rule 40, in relation to Section 3, Rule 22, controlled. They also maintained that the expiration of the contested offices rendered the controversies moot.

The decision thus turned on whether the appeals were perfected through timely and sufficient payment of required fees, and whether the damages issue survived notwithstanding the expiration of the terms.

Legal Basis and Reasoning: Governing Rules on Appeal Fees

The Court held that the COMELEC First Division erred in citing A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC as applicable. That procedure governed election contests and quo warranto cases in trial courts involving municipal and barangay officials, but for the May 10, 2010 Automated Elections, the Court approved A.M. No. 10-4-1-SC for election contests involving elective municipal officials, which superseded the earlier municipal election rules.

Under Sections 8 and 9, Rule 14 of A.M. No. 10-4-1-SC, an appeal required both (a) filing a notice of appeal within five (5) days after promulgation and (b) simultaneous payment of an appeal fee of P1,000.00 to the trial court.

As to the COMELEC appeal fee, the Court explained that under Section 3, Rule 40 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, as amended by COMELEC Minute Resolution No. 02-0130, an additional amount was required for cases appealed from the RTC. The Court then discussed that Section 4, Rule 40 previously required payment and deposit with the COMELEC Cash Division within the period to file the notice of appeal, and the relevant time was within five days after promulgation as understood in the rules.

Crucially, the Court examined COMELEC Resolution No. 8486 (July 15, 2008), which clarified that for appellants who had already paid the P1,000.00 appeal fee with the trial court within the five-day period and whose appeal was given due course, the appellant was required to pay the COMELEC appeal fee of P3,200.00 (in the resolution’s framework) at the COMELEC Cash Division through ECAD or by postal money order, within fifteen (15) days from the filing of the notice of appeal. If payment was not made within the prescribed period, dismissal would follow under Section 9(a), Rule 22, for failure to pay the correct appeal fee.

The Court emphasized that the earlier ruling in Divinagracia was correctly understood as imposing a no-longer-excusable rule on errors after its promulgation, but it did not narrow COMELEC Resolution No. 8486 to notices of appeal filed only up to July 27, 2009. The Court further relied on its earlier pronouncements in Aguilar v. COMELEC and Batalla v. COMELEC regarding the continuing applicability and effect of COMELEC Resolution No. 8486, including that it effectively extended the period to pay the COMELEC appeal fee to fifteen days from filing of the notice of appeal.

Application: Timeliness and Sufficiency of Petitioners’ COMELEC Appeal Fee Payments

Applying these rules, the Court found that petitioners Lim-Bungcaras, Castil, Avendula, Domingo Ramada, Jr., Victor Ramada, and Pamaos complied with the filing of notices of appeal and the payment of the RTC appeal fee in the required five-day period. The Court then focused on payment to the COMELEC.

As to Lim-Bungcaras and Pamaos, the Court held that they paid the COMELEC appeal fee on December 7, 2010, which was on the fifteenth day for Lim-Bungcaras and the fourteenth day for Pamaos, and that their payments were supported by postal money orders issued in their names and the corresponding official receipts. The Court therefore held that their payments complied with COMELEC Resolution No. 8486.

By contrast, for Castil, Avendula, Domingo Ramada, Jr., and Victor Ramada, the Court held that they did not actually remit their respective COMELEC appeal fees. It noted that their manifestations to the COMELEC attached only photocopies of postal money orders issued in the names of Lim-Bungcaras and Pamaos as proof of payment. The Court ruled that this was insufficient because Section 3, Rule 40 required each individual appellant to pay the appeal fee payable to the COMELEC.

Accordingly, the Court sustained dismissal as to the appeals of those petitioners who failed to remit their individual COMELEC appeal fees, while it held that the COMELEC First Division committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeals of Lim-Bungcaras and Pamaos despite their compliance with the COMELEC payment guidelines.

Mootness of the En Banc Motions and the Survival of the Damages Issue

On the second issue, the Court held that the COMELEC En Banc erred in denying the motions for reconsideration on the sole ground of mootness due to the expiration of the contested

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms