GR 165491; (March, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 165491. March 31, 2005
ROBERT E. OLANOLAN, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and CELSO A. TIZON, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Robert Olanolan and private respondent Celso Tizon were candidates for Punong Barangay in the July 2002 elections. Olanolan was proclaimed winner by a margin of ten votes. Tizon filed an election protest before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), alleging anomalies. During revision, ballots from Precincts 598-A and 608-A were found lacking COMELEC watermarks and security features. The BEI chairman for Precinct 598-A admitted bringing election paraphernalia home before election day. The MTCC dismissed the protest, ruling the ballots remained valid as they bore the BEI chairman’s initials, applying jurisprudence that ballots missing one authenticating mark are not automatically spurious.
Tizon appealed to the COMELEC. Its Second Division reversed the MTCC, declared Tizon the winner by 25 votes after a recount, and ordered his proclamation. Olanolan filed a Motion for Reconsideration (MR) with the COMELEC en banc but initially failed to pay the required motion fee, submitting the payment via postal money order only after the MR was elevated. The COMELEC en banc denied the MR due to non-payment of the fee at the time of filing, declaring the Second Division’s Resolution final and executory.
ISSUE
Whether the COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion in denying Olanolan’s Motion for Reconsideration for failure to pay the required motion fee.
RULING
No, the COMELEC en banc did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court emphasized that the payment of the prescribed docket and legal fees is mandatory and jurisdictional. An MR is deemed not filed unless the fee is paid. The Court cited _Villamor v. Commission on Elections_, which held that the period for filing an appeal or MR is interrupted only upon full payment of the fee. Olanolan’s belated payment, made after his MR was already elevated for en banc review due to the deficiency, did not cure the jurisdictional defect. The COMELEC’s denial was a strict application of procedural rules, not a whimsical exercise of power. The Court further ruled that certiorari under Rule 65 corrects only errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. Since the COMELEC acted within its jurisdiction in enforcing its procedural rules, the petition must fail. The issuance of a writ of execution following the finality of the Second Division’s resolution was likewise proper.