GR 146724; (August, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 146724 , August 10, 2001
GIL TAROJA VILLOTA, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTION and LUCIANO COLLANTES, respondents.
FACTS
In the May 12, 1997 barangay elections, petitioner Gil Taroj a Villota was proclaimed Punong Barangay. Private respondent Luciano Collantes filed an election protest. On December 29, 1999, the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila, Branch 24, rendered a decision declaring Collantes the duly elected Punong Barangay and ordering Villota to vacate the position. On March 2, 2000, petitioner filed a notice of appeal with the MeTC and paid P170.00 (P150.00 appeal fee and P20.00 legal research fee) to the MeTC cashier. On March 9, 2000, nine days after receiving the MeTC decision, petitioner paid P520.00 to the COMELEC Cash Division. Private respondent moved to dismiss the appeal for failure to pay the appeal fee within the reglementary period. The COMELEC First Division issued an Order dated June 13, 2000, dismissing the appeal for failure to perfect it on time, rendering the MeTC decision final and executory. The COMELEC En Banc denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated February 1, 2001.
ISSUE
Whether or not the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the appeal and denying the motion for reconsideration.
RULING
No, the COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit. Under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, a notice of appeal must be filed within five (5) days after the promulgation of the decision (Rule 22, Section 3). Furthermore, the appeal fee must be paid to the COMELEC Cash Division within the same period to perfect the appeal (Rule 40, Sections 3 and 4). Although petitioner timely filed his notice of appeal, he erroneously paid the required fees to the MeTC cashier instead of the COMELEC Cash Division. His subsequent payment to the COMELEC on March 9, 2000, was made four days beyond the five-day reglementary period. The Supreme Court, citing precedents such as Soller v. COMELEC, Loyola v. COMELEC, and Rodillas v. COMELEC, held that the payment of the full appeal fee within the reglementary period is an indispensable step for the perfection of an appeal; it is not a mere technicality. The Court also clarified that its earlier pronouncement in Loyola (March 25, 1997) bars any claim of good faith, excusable negligence, or mistake for failures to pay the full filing fees in election cases filed after that date. Therefore, the COMELEC correctly dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.