GR L 61498; (January, 1983) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-61498 January 17, 1983
Demetrio G. Villa, petitioner, vs. Honorable Federico A. Llanes, Jr., Laoag City Judge, respondent.
FACTS
Following the Barangay Elections of May 17, 1982, petitioner Demetrio G. Villa was proclaimed the elected barangay captain. His opponent, Concepcion M. Domingo, filed an election protest with the Laoag City Court. The court rendered a decision on July 19, 1982, declaring Domingo the winner. Petitioner received a copy of this decision on July 20, 1982.
On July 30, 1982, which was the tenth day from receipt, petitioner filed his notice of appeal and appeal bond with the city court. Respondent Judge Federico A. Llanes, Jr., however, denied the appeal. The denial was based on Rule VII, Section 14 of COMELEC Resolution No. 1566, which stated that a decision in a barangay election protest becomes final three days from receipt, with no motion for reconsideration allowed.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judge correctly denied the appeal based on the three-day period in the COMELEC resolution, or whether the ten-day appeal period provided under Batas Pambansa Blg. 222 governs.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the ten-day appeal period under Section 20 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 222 (the Barangay Election Act of 1982) is controlling. The legal logic is clear: a statute (Batas Pambansa Blg. 222) prevails over an administrative rule (COMELEC Resolution) issued for its implementation. The law explicitly provides that the decision of the trial court “may be appealed within ten days from receipt of a copy thereof to the Regional Trial Court.”
Furthermore, the Court noted that COMELEC Resolution No. 1566 had already been amended by COMELEC Resolution No. 1583 on June 22, 1982—weeks before the respondent judge’s order. This amendment expressly corrected Section 14 to state that the decision becomes final after ten days, aligning it with the law. Therefore, the respondent judge’s reliance on the superseded three-day rule was a mistaken application. Since the petitioner filed his appeal on the tenth day, it was timely. The Court annulled the order denying the appeal and directed the respondent judge to give due course to it.