MATEO R. NOLLEN, Jr. vs. COMELEC and SUSANA M. CABALLES

MATEO R. NOLLEN, Jr. vs. COMELEC and SUSANA M. CABALLES
G.R. No. 187635, January 11, 2010

Velasco, Jr., J:

Facts: Respondent Susan M. Caballes and Mateo R. Nollen were candidates for punong barangay of Gibanga, Sariaya, Quezonin the October 29, 2007 barangay elections. Having garnered 456 votes as against the 448 votes Caballes obtained, Nollen was declared as the punong barangay-elect. Dissatisfied with the result, Caballes instituted an election protest with the MTC in Sariaya, Quezon. On June 3, 2008, the MTC rendered a decision declaring protestant Caballes as punong barangay-elect, having garnered 456 votes, or 5 votes more than the 451 votes of Nollen. Nollen filed his notice of appeal and paid the MTC the appeal fee of Php1000 on June 5, 2008. Following the elevation of the MTC’s records to the COMELEC, the First Division of the COMELECon September 22, 2008, dismissed Nollen’s appeal for his failure to pay the appeal fee of PhP3,000 prescribed by Section 3 and 4, Rule 40 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure within the reglementary period of 5 days. Nollen moved for reconsideration, praying for the liberal interpretation of the rules, but stating in the same breath that his PhP 1,000 appeal fee payment was sufficient to perfect his appeal. On October 6, 2008, Nollen paid the amount of PhP3,200 at the COMELEC Cash Division. The COMELEC en banc denied Nollen’s motion for reconsideration stating that, while he timely filed his Notice of Appeal and simultaneously paid the Php1000 appeal fee with the MTC, the appeal would be deemed registered and docketed only upon full payment of the filing fee to the COMELEC. Hence, this petition for certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 seeking to nullify the order of the COMELEC en banc denying his motion for reconsideration.

Issue: Whether or not the appeal of Nollen was filed on time by paying the appeal fee in the MTC.

Held: The petition is meritorious.

Payment of appeal fees in appealed election protest cases is now separately required by the Rules of Court and Sec. 3, Rule 40 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, as amended by Resolution No. 02-0130, Series of 2002, a situation not obtaining previously. The Court, thus, deems it right to put things in proper perspective.
As Aguilar stated and COMELEC Resolution No. 8654 reiterated, the payment of the PhP 1,000 appeal fee within five days from the promulgation of the Regional Trial Court or MTC decision technically “perfects” the appeal from the trial court’s decision. Such appeal is not dismissible as a matter of course on account alone of the inadequate payment or nonpayment of the filing fee of PhP 3,200. The legal situation, however, changes if the appellant, in the words of Resolution No. 8654, fails, as directed, to pay the amount within 15 days from receipt of notice from the COMELEC. In the instant case, albeit Nollen paid the PhP 3,200 only in October 2008, or long after his receipt of the June 2008 MTC decision, his appeal may validly be viewed as not fatally belated. COMELEC Resolution No. 8654 is applicable to his appeal, as the appeal was on June 5, 2008, or prior to July 24, 2008 when the more stringent Resolution No. 8486 took effect.

It cannot be overemphasized, however, that the warning given in Divinagracia is inapplicable to the case at bar, since the notice of appeal in the instant case was filed on June 5, 2008. In the strict legal viewpoint, Divinagracia contextually finds applicability only in cases where notices of appeal were filed at least after the promulgation of the Divinagracia decision on July 27, 2009. Since petitioner paid the appeal fee of PhP 1,000 simultaneously with his filing of his notice of appeal on June 5, 2008, the appeal is considered perfected pursuant to COMELEC Resolution No. 8654, taking it beyond the ambit of Divinagracia. Again, petitioner’s failure to pay the remaining PhP 3,200 within the prescribed period cannot be taken against him, since the COMELEC failed to notify him regarding the additional appeal fee, as provided by Resolution No. 8654. Although Nollen, following superseded jurisprudence, failed to pay the filing fee on time, he nonetheless voluntarily paid the remaining PhP 3,200 appeal fee on October 6, 2008. We, thus, credit him for remitting the amount of PhP 3,200, which, applying extant rules and prevailing jurisprudence, cannot be considered as having been belatedly paid. Hence, his petition should be given due course.