G.R. No. 168296 ; January 31, 2007
Felomino V. Villagracia, Petitioner, vs. Commission on Elections and Renato V. De La Punta, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Felomino Villagracia was proclaimed the winning candidate for Punong Barangay in the July 2002 barangay elections by a margin of six votes. Private respondent Renato de la Punta filed an election protest. After a revision of ballots, the Municipal Trial Court invalidated thirty-four ballots for being marked, all deducted from Villagracia’s count. Consequently, the trial court declared de la Punta the winner and nullified Villagracia’s proclamation.
Villagracia appealed to the COMELEC First Division, raising for the first time the issue that the trial court lacked jurisdiction due to de la Punta’s alleged failure to pay the correct filing fees. The First Division agreed, set aside the trial court’s decision, and dismissed the protest for lack of jurisdiction. However, upon de la Punta’s motion for reconsideration, the COMELEC En Banc reversed the First Division, reinstated the trial court’s decision, and issued a writ of execution ordering Villagracia to vacate the post.

ISSUE

1. Whether the COMELEC En Banc gravely abused its discretion in not applying the Soller doctrine regarding jurisdiction due to non-payment of filing fees.
2. Whether the COMELEC erred in concluding that ballots containing the words “Joker,” “Queen,” “Alas,” and “Kamatis” constituted marked ballots.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. On the first issue, the Court held that the Soller doctrine was inapplicable. In Soller, the jurisdictional challenge was raised via a motion to dismiss before the trial court. Here, Villagracia actively participated in the trial court proceedings by filing an answer, participating in hearings, and submitting exhibits, only raising the jurisdictional issue for the first time on appeal after an adverse decision. Applying the principle of estoppel under Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, a party who voluntarily submits to a court’s jurisdiction and seeks affirmative relief cannot later deny that jurisdiction to escape an unfavorable judgment. Thus, Villagracia was estopped from belatedly challenging jurisdiction.
On the second issue, the Court affirmed that the ballots were validly invalidated as marked. The marks (“Joker,” “Queen,” “Alas,” “Kamatis”) were all found written in the same slot for Kagawad and appeared only in ballots where Villagracia was voted for as Punong Barangay. The Court reiterated that for a mark to invalidate a ballot, it need not identify a specific voter; it is sufficient that the mark was placed with the intention of identifying the ballot itself. The consistent placement and association with a single candidate indicated this identifying intent, not mere innocent or careless markings. Finally, in a certiorari proceeding under Rule 64, factual findings of the COMELEC supported by substantial evidence are final and non-reviewable.