Hipe vs COMELEC et al., G.R. No. 181528 [2]

[1]     [2]     [3]

The Exclusion of the Seven Election Returns

Was Amply Supported by Evidence

Nevertheless, even if we entertain petitioner Hipe’s appeal from the decision of the MBOC on the questioned election returns, the Court still rules in favor of respondent Vicencio.

Petitioner Hipe claims that no proof was presented nor was there any showing that the seven election returns in question were defective.[25]   Such contention is not persuasive.

The COMELEC, after a judicious evaluation of the documents on record, upheld the findings of the MBOC to exclude the subject election returns on the basis of the affidavits of the members of the Board of Election Inspectors.  What exactly these documents and evidence are upon which the COMELEC based its resolution, and how they have been appreciated in respect of their sufficiency, are beyond this Court’s scrutiny.[26] The rule that factual findings of administrative bodies will not be disturbed by courts of justice except when there is absolutely no evidence or no substantial evidence in support of such findings should be applied with greater force when it concerns the COMELEC, as the framers of the Constitution intended to place the COMELEC—created and explicitly made independent by the Constitution itself—on a level higher than statutory administrative organs.[27]  The factual finding of the COMELEC is, therefore, binding on the Court. As found by the COMELEC En Banc:

Besides, we do not agree that the exclusion of the seven (7) election returns in question were not supported by any iota of evidence. This is amply supported by the affidavits of the Members of the Board of Election Inspectors; they were all made in clear and unequivocal language by public officers who are presumed to have performed such duties in the ordinary and regular execution thereof. A careful re-examination of the evidence on record reveals that there is sufficient justification to uphold the MBOC ruling to exclude the subject election returns. The MBOC retains sufficient discretion to avail itself of all available means to ascertain the results of the elections through witnesses as well as examination of the election returns themselves. Where there is no abuse of discretion the MBOC is presumed to have acted within its powers and its decision should be treated with some amount of respect.[28]

This is especially true in the instant case considering that, as noted by the COMELEC En Banc in its questioned Resolution, one of the witnesses petitioner Hipe previously presented later on recanted her testimony and admitted that she had made her previous statement as to the regularity of the conduct of the May 14, 1007 elections only out of fear due to threats upon her person.[29] As correctly observed by the COMELEC En Banc:

We also note that even one of the witnesses presented by the appellant, Melanie Robion, Chairman of the BEI for precinct No. 0037B, later on recanted her testimony. This spells doom to the appellant’s cause as it even impacts on the veracity and truthfulness of the other affidavits that the appellant submitted. We are reminded of the legal principle that a falsity in one is a falsity in all, “Falsus in Onum, Falsus in Omnibus” and would now be more inclined to believe the assertions made by the appellee instead of those presented by the appellant, who has now been unmasked to have been less than truthful at one time or another.[30]

Considering the foregoing discussion, there is ample evidence to support the findings of the COMELEC that the seven election returns in question should be excluded. The contention of petitioner Hipe that said election returns were excluded from the canvass merely on the basis of pure procedural technicalities is, therefore, unfounded.

[1]     [2]     [3]

G.R. No. 186201 (Part 2)

In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that the First Division of the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in issuing the Order dated November 25, 2008, dismissing petitioner’s appeal. The case is remanded to the First Division of the COMELEC for disposition of the appeal in accordance with this decision, subject to the presentation by petitioner of the receipt evidencing payment of the appeal fee of P1,000.00 as required under Section 9, Rule  14 of  A. M. No. 07-4-15-SC.

It must be stated, however, that for notices of appeal filed after the promulgation on July 27, 2009 of Divinagracia v. Commission on Elections,^[22] errors in the matter of non-payment or incomplete payment of the two appeal fees in election cases are no longer excusable.

The second and third issues shall be discussed jointly.

Petitioner contends that the First Division of the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in acting on the motion for reconsideration without elevating the same to the COMELEC en banc, and in denying the motion for reconsideration.

The contention is meritorious.

It is settled that under Section 7, Article IX-A of the Constitution,^[23] what may be brought to this Court on certiorari is the decision, order or ruling of the COMELEC en banc.  However, this rule should not apply when a division of the COMELEC arrogates unto itself and deprives the en banc of the authority to rule on a motion for reconsideration, like in this case.^[24]

Section 3, Article IX-C of the Constitution provides for the procedure for the resolution of election cases by the COMELEC, thus:

Sec. 3.  The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in two divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of procedure in order to expedite disposition of election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies. All such election cases shall be heard and decided in division, provided that motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the Commission en banc.

The constitutional provision is reflected in Sections 5 and 6, Rule 19 of  the COMELEC Rules of Procedure as follows:

Sec. 5.  How Motion for Reconsideration Disposed of. — Upon the filing of a motion to reconsider a decision, resolution, order or ruling of a Division, the Clerk of Court concerned shall, within twenty-four (24) hours from the filing thereof, notify the Presiding Commissioner. The latter shall within two (2) days thereafter certify the case to the Commission en banc.

Sec. 6. Duty of Clerk of Court of Commission to Calendar Motion for Reconsideration. — The Clerk of Court concerned shall calendar the motion for reconsideration for the resolution of the Commission en banc within ten (10) days from the certification thereof.

In this case, the First Division of the COMELEC violated the cited provisions of the Constitution and the COMELEC Rules of Procedure when it resolved petitioner's motion for reconsideration of its final Order dated November 25, 2008, which dismissed petitioner’s appeal.  By arrogating unto itself a power constitutionally lodged in the Commission en banc, the  First Division of the COMELEC exercised judgment in excess of, or without, jurisdiction.^[25]  Hence, the Order issued by the First Division of the COMELEC dated January 9, 2009, denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, is null and void.

  

Petitioner stated in her Reply^[26]  that on April 1, 2009, the First Division of the COMELEC issued an Order declaring the Order dated November 25, 2008 as final and executory, and ordering the issuance of an Entry of Judgment.  On April 1, 2009, an Entry of Judgment was issued by the Electoral Contests Adjudication Department.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.  The Orders dated November 25, 2008 and  January  9, 2009  by the First Division of the COMELEC, and the Entry of Judgment issued on  April 1, 2009 by the Electoral Contests Adjudication Department are  ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.  The case is REMANDED to the First Division of the Commission on Elections for disposition in accordance with this Decision.

  

No costs.

SO ORDERED.

DIOSDADO M. PERALTA

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

On Official Leave

REYNATO S. PUNO

Chief Justice

On Leave LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice	ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice	CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice
On Leave MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice	PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice	TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice
ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice	LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO Associate Justice	ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

          Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO

Acting Chief Justice

---

^*               On official leave.

^**             On leave.

^[1]               Under Rule 64 in relation to Rules 65 of the Rules of Court. 

^[2]               Rollo, p. 26.

^[3]               Id. at 27.

^[4]               Id. at 46-54.

^[5]               Id. at 53-54.

^[6]               Id. at 55-58.

^[7]              Rule 14, Sec. 9. Appeal fee. — The appellant in an election contest shall pay to the court that rendered the decision an appeal fee of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00), simultaneously with the filing of the notice of appeal.

^[8]               Rollo, p. 26.

^[9]               Id. at 28-35.

^[10]             Id. at 27.

^[11]              Id. at 16.

^[12]             Batul v. Bayron, 468 Phil. 131, 148 (2004).

^[13]             Id.

^[14]             Supra note 6.

^[15]             Rule 14, Sec. 9. Appeal fee. — The appellant in an election contest shall pay to the court that rendered the decision an appeal fee of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00), simultaneously with the filing of the notice of appeal.

^[16]             Rollo, pp. 97-100.

^[17]             Rule  14, Sec. 8. Appeal. — An aggrieved party may appeal the decision to the Commission on Elections, within five days after promulgation, by filing a notice of appeal with the court that rendered the decision, with copy served on the adverse counsel or party if not represented by counsel.

Rule 14, Sec. 9. Appeal fee. — The appellant in an election contest shall pay to the court that rendered the decision an appeal fee of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00), simultaneously with the filing of the notice of appeal.

^[18]             Rollo, pp. 103-110.

^[19]             G.R. No. 185140, June 30, 2009.

.

^[20]                                                             COMELEC RESOLUTION NO. 8486

IN THE MATTER OF CLARIFYING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMELEC RULES RE: PAYMENT OF FILING FEES FOR APPEALED CASES INVOLVING BARANGAY AND MUNICIPAL ELECTIVE POSITIONS FROM THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS AND REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS

WHEREAS, the Commission on Elections is vested with appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction, and those involving elective barangay officials, decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction;

WHEREAS, Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 07-4-15 (Rules of Procedure in Election Contests Before the Courts Involving Elective Municipal and Barangay Officials) promulgated on May 15, 2007 provides in Sections 8 and 9, Rule 14 thereof the procedure for instituting the appeal and the required appeal fees to be paid for the appeal to be given due course, to wit:

Section 8.  Appeal. — An aggrieved party may appeal the decision to the Commission on Elections, within five days after promulgation, by filing a notice of appeal with the court that rendered the decision, with copy served on the adverse counsel or party if not represented by counsel.

Section 9.  Appeal fee. — The appellant in an election contest shall pay to the court that rendered the decision an appeal fee of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00), simultaneously with the filing of the notice of appeal.

WHEREAS, payment of appeal fees in appealed election protest cases is also required in Section 3, Rule 40 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure the amended amount of which was set atP3,200.00 in COMELEC Minute Resolution No. 02-0130 made effective on September 18, 2002.

WHEREAS, the requirement of these two appeal fees by two different jurisdictions had caused confusion in the implementation by the Commission on Elections of its procedural rules on payment of appeal fees for the perfection of appeals of cases brought before it from the Courts of General and Limited Jurisdictions.

WHEREAS, there is a need to clarify the rules on compliance with the required appeal fees for the proper and judicious exercise of the Commission's appellate jurisdiction over election protest cases.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Commission hereby RESOLVES to DIRECT as follows:

1.                     That if the appellant had already paid the amount of P1,000.00 before the Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court or lower courts within the five-day period, pursuant to Section 9, Rule 14 of the Rules of Procedure in Election Contests Before the Courts Involving Elective Municipal and Barangay Officials (Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 07-4-15) and his Appeal was given due course by the Court, said appellant is required to pay the Comelec appeal fee of P3,200.00 at the Commission's Cash Division through the Electoral Contests Adjudication Department (ECAD) or by postal money order payable to the Commission on Elections through ECAD, within a period of  fifteen days (15) from the time of the filing of the Notice of Appeal with the lower court. If no payment is made within the prescribed period, the appeal shall be dismissed pursuant to Section 9(a) of Rule 22 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, which provides:

  Sec. 9.   Grounds for Dismissal of Appeal. — The appeal may be dismissed upon motion of either party or at the instance of the Commission on any of the following grounds:

(a)           Failure of the appellant to pay the correct appeal fee; . . .

2.             That if the appellant failed to pay the P1,000.00 — appeal fee with the lower court within the five (5) day period as prescribed by the Supreme Court New Rules of Procedure but the case was nonetheless elevated to the Commission, the appeal shall be dismissed outright by the Commission, in accordance with the aforestated Section 9(a) of Rule 22 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure.

The Education and Information Department is directed to cause the publication of this resolution in two (2) newspapers of general circulation. This resolution shall take effect on the seventh day following its publication.

^[21]             Aguilar v. Commission on Elections, supra note 19.

^[22]             G.R. Nos. 186007 & 186016, July 27, 2009.

^[23]             Art. IX. Sec. 7. Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote of all its members any case or matter brought before it within sixty days from the date of its submission for decision or resolution.  A case or matter is deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the rules of the Commission or by the Commission itself.  Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling or each Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof.

^[24]             Aguilar v. Commission on Elections, supra note 19.

^[25]             Id.

^[26]             Rollo, pp. 103-109.

<< PREVIOUS