G.R. Nos. 186007 & 186016; July 27, 2009
SALVADOR DIVINAGRACIA, JR., Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and ALEX A. CENTENA, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Salvador Divinagracia, Jr. and private respondent Alex Centena were candidates for Vice-Mayor of Calinog, Iloilo in the May 14, 2007 elections. Divinagracia was proclaimed winner by a margin of 13 votes. Centena filed an election protest before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which dismissed the protest, upholding the presumption of regularity in the conduct of elections. Both parties appealed to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), paying the ₱1,000 appeal fee prescribed under the new Rules of Procedure for Municipal and Barangay Officials (A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC).
The COMELEC Second Division, after re-appreciating the contested ballots, reversed the RTC and declared Centena the duly elected Vice-Mayor. Divinagracia filed a motion for reconsideration, raising for the first time the argument that the COMELEC did not acquire jurisdiction over the appeal because both parties failed to pay the correct appeal fee of ₱3,200 under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. The COMELEC En Banc denied the motion, applying the doctrine of estoppel by laches, as Divinagracia actively participated in the proceedings by filing his briefs without raising the jurisdictional issue.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in assuming jurisdiction over the appeal despite the alleged non-payment of the correct appeal fee.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC. The Court clarified the applicable jurisprudence on the payment of appeal fees. While payment is generally a mandatory and jurisdictional requirement, the rule admits of exceptions. The Court distinguished the case from Villamayor v. Commission on Elections, where it dismissed an appeal for failure to pay the correct fee, by noting a critical factual difference: in Villamayor, the appellant paid no fee at all, whereas here, both parties paid the ₱1,000 fee required under the newer, specific rules for municipal contests (A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC) which took effect just before the election.
The Court held that the payment made constituted substantial compliance. Furthermore, it agreed with the COMELEC En Banc that the petitioner was estopped by laches from belatedly raising the issue only after an adverse decision. By voluntarily submitting to the COMELEC’s jurisdiction, filing multiple pleadings, and seeking affirmative relief, petitioner effectively waived his right to challenge jurisdiction on that ground. The COMELEC’s actions were within its discretion and did not amount to a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment. The technicality of the appeal fee could not be used to defeat the will of the electorate as determined through the COMELEC’s re-appreciation of the ballots.