GR 129958; (November, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 129958 November 25, 1999
MIGUEL MELENDRES, JR., petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and RUPERTO P. CONCEPCION, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Miguel Melendres, Jr. and private respondent Ruperto P. Concepcion were candidates for Barangay Chairman of Caniogan, Pasig City, in the May 12, 1997 elections. Concepcion was proclaimed the winner. Melendres filed an election protest with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC). During a preliminary hearing, it was revealed that Melendres had not paid the required filing or docket fee. Concepcion moved to dismiss the protest on this ground. The MTC denied the motion, ruling the fee was a mere administrative requirement and not jurisdictional, and scheduled the revision of ballots.
Concepcion then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the COMELEC (SPR No. 16-97), assailing the MTC’s orders. The COMELEC, without conducting a hearing or requiring an answer from Melendres, issued the assailed Resolution dated July 17, 1997. It set aside the MTC’s orders and directed the MTC to cease acting on the election case, effectively dismissing the protest for non-payment of the filing fee.
ISSUE
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the Resolution without observing its own Rules of Procedure, particularly the requirements for hearing and due process.
RULING
Yes, the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court granted the petition and annulled the COMELEC Resolution. The legal logic is anchored on the violation of procedural due process and the mandatory nature of the COMELEC’s own rules. The COMELEC Rules of Procedure, specifically Section 6, Rule 28, mandate that judgment in a special relief case, like the certiorari petition filed by Concepcion, shall be rendered “after such hearing.” The COMELEC rendered its decision ex parte, without any hearing and without requiring Melendres to file an answer, thereby depriving him of the opportunity to be heard. This constitutes a denial of fundamental fairness.
Furthermore, the Court clarified the substantive issue regarding the filing fee. While the non-payment of the correct filing fee is generally jurisdictional, the rule admits of exceptions. The MTC had found that the protestant was willing to pay but the clerk of court refused acceptance. The subsequent payment, made upon the court’s order, cured the initial deficiency. The COMELEC’s rigid application of the rule, without considering these circumstances and without a hearing, was arbitrary. The COMELEC’s power to suspend its own rules for the interest of justice does not permit it to disregard the basic tenets of due process. Its actions amounted to a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.