GR 183366; (August, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 183366, August 19, 2009
RICARDO C. DUCO, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FIRST DIVISION; AND NARCISO B. AVELINO, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Ricardo C. Duco was proclaimed the elected Punong Barangay of Barangay Ibabao, Loay, Bohol, in the October 29, 2007 elections. His opponent, respondent Narciso B. Avelino, filed an election protest before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC). The MCTC ruled in favor of Avelino, declaring him the duly elected Punong Barangay. Duco filed a notice of appeal to the COMELEC and paid various fees totaling P1,400.00.
The COMELEC First Division dismissed Duco’s appeal in an Order dated April 30, 2008, for failure to perfect the appeal due to non-payment of the correct appeal fee of P3,000.00 as prescribed by the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. Duco filed a motion for reconsideration, but the COMELEC First Division denied it in a Resolution dated May 22, 2008, for his failure to pay the required motion fees.
ISSUE
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing Duco’s appeal and denying his motion for reconsideration for non-compliance with procedural rules on payment of fees.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition. The Court found that the COMELEC First Division committed grave abuse of discretion, but on a fundamental constitutional ground separate from the fee payment issue. The Court held that the May 22, 2008 Resolution, which denied Duco’s motion for reconsideration, was issued by the COMELEC First Division. This was a patent violation of Section 3, Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution, which mandates that motions for reconsideration of decisions of a Division shall be decided by the Commission en banc. The procedural steps outlined in the COMELEC Rules for elevating a motion for reconsideration to the en banc were not followed. Consequently, the assailed Resolution was issued without jurisdiction and is null and void.
Regarding the dismissal of the appeal for insufficient fees, the Court, while noting the general rule that payment of prescribed docket fees is mandatory and jurisdictional, found that the COMELEC’s strict application under the circumstances warranted scrutiny. However, given the primary ruling on the constitutional violation, the Court set aside the COMELEC’s April 30, 2008 Order and May 22, 2008 Resolution. The case was remanded to the COMELEC for proper proceedings, with instructions for the Commission en banc to resolve Duco’s motion for reconsideration of the First Division’s Order dismissing his appeal.