G.R. No. 126361 June 19, 1997
VICTOR R. MIRANDA and JOSE M. FRANCISCO, petitioners, vs. JESSIE B. CASTILLO, LORENZO S. GAWARAN, the COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, HON. JUDGE LUCENITO TAGLE, Executive Judge, RTC, Imus, Cavite, Branch XX, respondents.

FACTS

In the May 8, 1995 elections, petitioners Victor Miranda and Jose Francisco were proclaimed as the duly-elected mayor and vice-mayor, respectively, of Bacoor, Cavite. On May 24, 1995, private respondents Jessie Castillo and Lorenzo Gawaran, who also ran for mayor and vice-mayor, filed election protests with the RTC of Imus, Cavite. The protests were consolidated. On October 27, 1995, petitioners moved to dismiss the protests on the ground of lack of jurisdiction due to the protestants’ failure to pay the P300.00 filing fee. Private respondents claimed they paid P414.00 as filing fees. On January 24, 1996, the trial court granted the motion and dismissed the protests, finding that no payment for the filing fee was made. The court noted that the P414.00 paid corresponded to the docket fee for the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) pursuant to Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 31-90, not the filing fee for an election protest. The trial court cited Gatchalian v. Court of Appeals. Private respondents’ motion for reconsideration was denied. They then filed a petition for certiorari with the COMELEC. On September 5, 1996, the COMELEC reversed the RTC’s order of dismissal and directed the continuation of the proceedings, ruling that private respondents paid what was demanded by the RTC Clerk of Court and were in good faith, citing Pahilan v. Tabalba. Petitioners filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition. During the pendency of the case, private respondents filed a motion to inhibit respondent Judge Tagle, which he granted. Petitioners contend the COMELEC erred in finding the filing fees were paid and in taking cognizance of the petition for certiorari since the period to appeal had lapsed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the COMELEC erred in finding that the filing fees for the election protests were duly paid, thereby vesting jurisdiction in the RTC.
2. Whether the COMELEC erred in taking cognizance of the petition for certiorari questioning the RTC’s dismissal after the period to appeal had lapsed.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition.
On the first issue, the Court found no merit. The breakdown of fees paid by private respondents showed: Filing Fee (GF) P32.00, Summons (GF) P4.00, JDF P414.00, Legal Research Fund Fee P10.00, and Victim Compensation Fee P5.00, totaling P465.00. The RTC Clerk of Court incorrectly assessed P32.00 as the filing fee. The P414.00 was for the Judiciary Development Fund, not the filing fee. This constituted an incomplete payment of the P300.00 filing fee required under COMELEC rules, correctible by payment of the P268.00 deficiency. The Court cited Loyola v. COMELEC, which held that an incorrect assessment by the Clerk of Court is a technicality that should not defeat an election protest. The case of Gatchalian v. COMELEC was inapplicable as there was a partial payment here, not an absolute non-payment.
On the second issue, the Court held that while certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal, a rigid application of this rule is not allowed where primordial interests of justice are best served. The hearing of election cases aims to ascertain the true choice of the electorate, and the dismissal was improper under current jurisprudence. Procedural technicality should be disregarded for an immediate and final resolution.
Regarding the inhibition of Judge Tagle, the Court found the erroneous dismissal was a mere error of judgment, not proof of bias. For an orderly administration of justice, the revision of ballots already started should be continued by the same judge.
The Court lifted the temporary restraining order, set aside the inhibition order, and directed Executive Judge Tagle to issue an order for private respondents to pay the deficiency in filing fees and to proceed with the resolution of the election cases.