G.R. No. 110170 February 21, 1994
ROLETO A. PAHILAN, petitioner, vs. RUDY A. TABALBA, COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, and HONORABLE JUDGE SINFOROSO V. TABAMO, JR., BRANCH 28, MAMBAJAO, CAMIGUIN, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Roleto A. Pahilan and private respondent Rudy A. Tabalba were candidates for Mayor of Guinsiliban, Camiguin in the May 11, 1992 elections. Tabalba was proclaimed winner. Pahilan filed an election protest by registered mail on May 23, 1992, attaching P200.00 for docket fees. The OIC-Clerk of Court informed him the correct fee was P620.00, and the protest would not be docketed pending payment of the P420.00 balance. Pahilan paid the balance on June 16, 1992. Tabalba filed his Answer, alleging lack of jurisdiction due to the protest being filed beyond the ten-day period. The trial court, after proceedings, issued an Order on October 2, 1992, denying Pahilan’s motion for inhibition and dismissing the election protest for “non-payment on time of the required fees for filing an initiatory pleading.” Pahilan received the order on October 12, 1992. On October 17, 1992, within the five-day appeal period, Pahilan filed a verified appeal brief directly with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and sent copies to the trial court and Tabalba’s counsel. The trial court clerk later informed the COMELEC it had not received a notice of appeal. Consequently, the COMELEC, in an Order dated January 19, 1993, dismissed Pahilan’s appeal for failure to file a notice of appeal with the trial court within the prescribed period. A motion for reconsideration was denied on May 6, 1993.

ISSUE

1. Whether the COMELEC validly dismissed the petitioner’s verified appeal for his failure to file a notice of appeal with the trial court.
2. Whether the trial court validly dismissed the election protest for non-payment on time of the required filing fee.

RULING

1. No. The Supreme Court held that the COMELEC did not validly dismiss the appeal. The filing of the verified appeal brief with the COMELEC within the reglementary period, with copies furnished to the trial court and the adverse party, substantially complied with the requirement for a notice of appeal. The Court ruled that election cases, being imbued with public interest, should be liberally construed to give effect to the will of the electorate. Technicalities should not frustrate this objective. The act of filing the appeal brief, which is more expressive of the intent to appeal than a mere notice, and the service of copies on the necessary parties, served the purpose of a notice of appeal. The Court emphasized that public interest in election cases is of greater importance than strict adherence to procedural technicalities.
2. No. The Supreme Court held that the trial court did not validly dismiss the election protest. The Court found that the initial payment of P200.00, though insufficient, was made in good faith based on the petitioner’s belief of the old fee rate. The balance was paid promptly upon being informed of the deficiency. The Court distinguished this case from Manchester v. Court of Appeals, noting that in election cases, the filing fee is fixed and not contingent on a claim for damages, and any claim for damages is merely ancillary. The payment of the full docket fee, though delayed, vested jurisdiction in the trial court. Dismissal based on this procedural lapse was unjustified.
The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the COMELEC’s Order and Resolution and the trial court’s Order. The records were REMANDED to the trial court for expeditious continuation of the election protest proceedings.