GR 139853; (September, 2000) (Digest)

G.R. No. 139853; September 5, 2000
FERDINAND THOMAS M. SOLLER, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PINAMALAYAN, ORIENTAL MINDORO (Branch 42) and ANGEL M. SAULONG, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ferdinand Thomas Soller and private respondent Angel Saulong were candidates for mayor of Bansud, Oriental Mindoro in the May 11, 1998 elections. Soller was proclaimed the winner. Saulong filed a pre-proclamation petition with the COMELEC on May 19, 1998, and subsequently lodged an election protest with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) on May 25, 1998. Soller filed an answer with counter-protest and moved to dismiss the protest on grounds of lack of jurisdiction due to alleged non-payment of filing fees, forum-shopping, and failure to state a cause of action. The RTC denied the motion to dismiss and the subsequent motion for reconsideration.
Soller then filed a petition for certiorari directly with the COMELEC en banc, assailing the RTC’s orders. The COMELEC en banc dismissed Soller’s petition, ruling that the filing fee was paid, any verification defect was merely technical, and there was no forum-shopping. Soller elevated the case to the Supreme Court via the instant petition, arguing the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC en banc gravely abused its discretion in affirming the RTC’s refusal to dismiss the election protest.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition. The legal logic proceeds from a threshold jurisdictional issue. Under the Constitution and established jurisprudence, the COMELEC en banc cannot hear and decide election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies, in the first instance; this power resides in its divisions. Soller’s petition before the COMELEC, which assailed an interlocutory order (denial of a motion to dismiss) in an election protest, was an incidental matter cognizable by a division. The COMELEC en banc thus acted without jurisdiction in taking cognizance of it in the first instance, rendering its resolution null and void.
Nonetheless, to resolve the controversy, the Court addressed the substantive grounds. It found that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing the protest. Saulong failed to pay the full P300 filing fee required by COMELEC rules, paying only P105 initially and the balance only after the motion to dismiss was filed. This failure is jurisdictional and warrants dismissal. Furthermore, Saulong engaged in forum-shopping by simultaneously pursuing a pre-proclamation case before the COMELEC and an election protest before the RTC, both seeking to nullify Soller’s proclamation based on similar grounds. The verification defect in the protest petition was also a substantive flaw, not a mere technicality. Consequently, the RTC orders were annulled, and the election protest was ordered dismissed.