G.R. No. 264029 , August 8, 2023.
JOENAR VARGAS AGRAVANTE, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT OF GOA, CAMARINES SUR, AND JOSEPH AMATA BLANCE, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Joenar Vargas Agravante and private respondent Joseph Amata Blance were candidates for Punong Barangay of Matacla, Goa, Camarines Sur, in the May 14, 2018 Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections (BSKE). Petitioner was proclaimed the winner with 789 votes against private respondent’s 786 votes, a margin of three votes. Private respondent filed an election protest before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC). After revision of ballots, the MTC, in its Decision dated October 15, 2018, excluded from the official count a number of ballots that were not formally offered in evidence by either party, pursuant to Section 2, Rule 13 of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC. Consequently, the MTC set aside petitioner’s proclamation and declared private respondent the elected Punong Barangay, finding he obtained 789 votes against petitioner’s 784 votes. Petitioner appealed to the COMELEC. The COMELEC First Division, in an Order dated July 2, 2019, dismissed the appeal for petitioner’s failure to submit his brief within the prescribed period. It found that petitioner, who served his brief by registered mail, failed to submit the mandatory affidavit of mailing, registry receipt as proof of service, and a written explanation for resorting to service by mail, as required by the Rules of Court in relation to the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the COMELEC En Banc in a Resolution dated September 20, 2022, which affirmed the First Division’s Order. The COMELEC En Banc held that the submission of the documentary requirements was mandatory and petitioner’s noncompliance, which he merely attributed to inadvertence, was a clear ground for dismissal. Petitioner then filed the instant Petition for Certiorari under Rule 64, assailing the COMELEC En Banc’s Resolution.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing petitioner’s appeal due to his failure to perfect the appeal in accordance with law.

RULING

No, the COMELEC En Banc did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court ruled that the COMELEC En Banc’s Resolution was duly supported by law and the records. The requirements of submitting an affidavit of mailing, registry receipt, and written explanation for service by mail under Sections 11 and 13, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, in relation to Section 3, Rule 12 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, are mandatory. Petitioner’s failure to comply with these requirements justified the COMELEC First Division’s consideration of his brief as not filed and the consequent dismissal of his appeal for failure to submit the brief within the period, pursuant to Section 9(b), Rule 22 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. The COMELEC En Banc correctly denied the motion for reconsideration as petitioner failed to justify his noncompliance and failed to raise new issues or substantial matters warranting reversal. The Court found no whimsical, arbitrary, or capricious exercise of power by the COMELEC. The Court emphasized that procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have resulted in prejudice to a party’s substantive rights, and liberal application of the rules is not a right but a matter of sound judicial discretion. The petition was dismissed.