G.R. No. 191124 April 27, 2010
LUIS A. ASISTIO, Petitioner, vs. HON. THELMA CANLAS TRINIDAD-PE AGUIRRE, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Caloocan City, Branch 129; HON. ARTHUR O. MALABAGUIO, Presiding Judge, Metropolitan Trial Court, Caloocan City, Branch 52; ENRICO R. ECHIVERRI, Board of Election Inspectors of Precinct 1811A, Barangay 15, Caloocan City; and the CITY ELECTION OFFICER, Caloocan City, Respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Enrico R. Echiverri, a candidate for Mayor of Caloocan City, filed a Petition for Exclusion of Voter against petitioner Luis A. Asistio, also a mayoral candidate, before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC). Echiverri alleged that Asistio was not a resident of the address (123 Interior P. Zamora St., Barangay 15, Caloocan City) stated in his Certificate of Candidacy for the 2010 elections. He supported this with a Barangay Certification that the address was non-existent and pointed out discrepancies in Asistio’s registered addresses in the 2009 Computerized Voters’ List and his 2007 COC. The MeTC, after trial, rendered a decision on February 5, 2010, directing the removal of Asistio’s name from the permanent list of voters of Caloocan City. Asistio filed a Notice of Appeal and paid the required appeal fees via postal money orders purchased on February 10, 2010, but the money orders were tendered to the MeTC on February 11, 2010. Echiverri filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal, arguing the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction due to non-payment of docket fees. Judge Thelma Canlas Trinidad-Pe Aguirre of the RTC granted the motion, ruling that the docket fee was not paid simultaneously with the filing of the Notice of Appeal on February 10, which was filed beyond office hours. Asistio filed the present petition for certiorari assailing the RTC Order.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Asistio’s appeal from the MeTC decision on the ground of non-payment of appellate docket fees.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion. The Court found that Asistio had substantially complied with the procedural requirements by purchasing the postal money orders for the appeal fees on February 10, 2010, the last day for filing the appeal, even though they were tendered the next day. The Court emphasized that the right to vote is a most precious political right and a citizen cannot be disenfranchised for flimsy reasons. Dismissal of appeals on purely technical grounds is frowned upon. The policy is to encourage resolution of cases on their merits, and procedural rules may be liberally construed to serve substantial justice, especially when a constitutionally guaranteed right like suffrage is at stake. The technicality of the timing of the fee payment should not thwart the proper determination of the case on substantial grounds.