GR 158610; (November, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 158610 , November 12, 2004
ESTEBAN M. ZAMORAS, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (First Division) and BARTOLOME BASTASA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Esteban M. Zamoras and private respondent Bartolome Bastasa were candidates for Punong Barangay of Barangay Galas, Dipolog City in the July 15, 2002 elections. Bastasa was proclaimed winner. Zamoras filed an election protest before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), which dismissed the protest. Zamoras filed a notice of appeal with the MTCC on December 2, 2002, paying only P600 as an appeal fee.
The COMELEC’s Judicial Records Division notified Zamoras of a deficiency, as the required appeal fee under COMELEC Resolution No. 02-0130 was P3,200. Zamoras remitted the deficient P2,600 only on January 28, 2003. The COMELEC First Division dismissed his appeal on March 10, 2003, for failure to perfect the appeal within the reglementary period, citing non-payment of the correct fee. Zamoras filed a motion for reconsideration but again failed to pay the required motion fees. The COMELEC denied his motion on April 4, 2003, and subsequently declared its orders final and executory. Zamoras then filed this petition for certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Zamoras’ appeal and denying his motion for reconsideration for failure to pay the full and correct appeal and motion fees on time.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The payment of the full appeal fee within the reglementary period for filing the notice of appeal is a mandatory and jurisdictional requirement under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. Sections 3 and 4, Rule 40 explicitly state that appeal fees “shall be paid” within the period to file the notice of appeal.
Zamoras filed his notice of appeal on time but paid only a partial fee. His subsequent payment of the deficiency almost two months later did not cure the jurisdictional defect. The Court emphasized that the requirement of an appeal fee is not a mere technicality but an essential prerequisite for the perfection of an appeal. Failure to comply renders the decision of the lower court final and executory. This principle is well-established in jurisprudence, such as in Rodillas v. COMELEC and Loyola v. COMELEC. The right to appeal is statutory, and its exercise must conform to the prescribed procedure. The COMELEC, therefore, acted within its jurisdiction in dismissing the appeal for non-perfection. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.