JONAS TAGUIAM v. COMELEC and ANTHONY C. TUDDAO (G.R. No.184801, July 30, 2009) YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: Facts: Petitioner and private respondent were candidates for the position of Sangguniang Panglungsod of Tuguegarao City in Cagayan during the 2007 National and Local Elections. On May 19, 2007, petitioner was proclaimed by the City Board of Canvassers (CBOC) as the 12 th ranking and winning candidate for the said position with 10,981 votes. Private respondent obtained 10,971 votes and was ranked no. 13. On May 25, 2007, private respondent filed with the COMELEC a petition for correction of manifest errors in the Election Returns and Statement of Votes for 27 clustered precinct and for the annulment of the proclamation of the affected winning candidate in Tuguegarao City. He alleged that he was credited with less votes in several Statements of Votes by Precincts (SOVP) as compared with the tally of his votes in the election returns (ERs), whereas petitioner was credited with more votes. Private respondent offered evidence in the following nine precincts: 0035A/0036A, 0061A/0063A, 69A/69B, 87A/87B, 192A/192B, 264A/265A, 324A/325B, 326A, and 328B. On December 20, 2007, the Second Division of the COMELEC granted instant Petition filed by Anthony Tuddao for Correction of Manifest Error and Annulment of Proclamation of Jonas Taguiam. The COMELEC concluded that nine votes should be added to the total number of votes garnered by private respondent; while 24 votes should be deducted from the total number of votes obtained by petitioner. Thus, the total number of votes obtained by private respondent was 10,980, while the total number of votes received by petitioner was 10,957. As such, private respondent was rightfully the 12th winning candidate for the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Tuguegarao City, Cagayan. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the COMELEC En Banc on October 9, 2008. Hence, this Petition for Certiorari the COMELEC however has the discretion to suspend its rules of procedure or any portion thereof. 4. Sections 3 and 4 of Rule 1 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure state. The Court has consistently employed liberal construction of procedural rules in election cases to the end that the will of the people in the choice of public officers may not be defeated by mere technical objections. Construction. the Court finds no grave abuse of . Suspension of the Rules. – In the interest of justice and in order to obtain speedy disposition of all matters pending before the Commission.Issue: Whether or not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it took cognizance of private respondent’s petition for correction of manifest errors in the Election Returns and Statement of Votes despite its late filing. Certainly. In Jaramilla v. honest. Ruling: No. such rule of suspension is in accordance with the spirit of Section 6. 3. While the petition was indeed filed beyond the 5-day reglementary period. expeditious and inexpensive determination and disposition of every action and proceeding brought before the Commission. For acting pursuant to its Constitutional mandate of determining the true will of the electorate with substantiated evidence. the Court affirmed the COMELECs suspension of its rules of procedure regarding the late filing of a petition for correction of manifest error and annulment of proclamation in view of its paramount duty to determine the real will of the electorate. Article IX-A of the Constitution which bestows upon the COMELEC the power to "promulgate its own rules concerning pleadings and practice before it or before any of its offices" to attain justice and the noble purpose of determining the true will of the electorate. Sec. to wit: Sec. Commission on Elections. peaceful and credible elections and to achieve just. – These rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote the effective and efficient implementation of the objectives of ensuring the holding of free. Commission on Elections and Dela Llana v. these rules or any portion thereof may be suspended by the Commission. orderly. private respondent filed with the RTC a Protest dated May 25. v. Thereafter. Sr. contesting the results of the elections in 10 of the 49 precincts in Motiong. there can be no valid proclamation to speak of. . Pacanan. On January 7. J. Samar proclaimed petitioner as the duly elected mayor. 2007 which was docketed as Election Case No. which declared private respondent as the winner in the May 14. Samar.069 votes against private respondents 3. and private respondent Francisco M. LANGI. 07-1. Said proclamation is flawed from the beginning because it did not reflect the true and legitimate will of the electorate. 186224. On January 10. the Comelec First Division issued an Order dismissing the appeal for Protestee-Appellants failure to pay the correct appeal fee as prescribed by the Comelec Rules of Procedure within the five-(5)-day reglementary period. SR. 2007 mayoralty race for Motiong.discretion on the part of COMELEC in annulling the proclamation of petitioner. PACANAN JR. Private respondent was awarded the amount of P 32. August 25.510 as actual damages. Langi. Catbalogan.R. Jr. having garnered a total of 3.: Facts: Petitioner Constancio D. 2007 elections. 2008.. (G. A-13-2008. After the canvassing of votes. and alleging acts of violence and intimidation and other election irregularities in the appreciation of the votes by the MBC. 2008. He also appealed the RTC decision dated January 7. Branch 27. Samar with a plurality of six (6) votes and annulled the proclamation as mayor of the petitioner. 2009) LEONARDO-DE CASTRO. On March 17. COMELEC and FRANCISCO M. petitioner filed a notice of appeal and before the RTC. Samar during the May 14. Samar. CONSTANCIO D. 2008. 2008 to the Comelec which docketed the case as EAC No. the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) of Motiong. Having been based on a faulty tabulation.066 votes. the RTC rendered a decision in Election Case 07-1. No. were candidates for mayor in the municipality of Motiong. The petition for certiorari is DISMISSED for lack of merit. declaring that the appeal was not perfected on time for non-payment of the complete amount of appeal fee and for late payment as well. No. Petitioner invokes liberality in the application of the election law. 2007 elections should be determined by ordering the Comelec to give due course to his appeal and to resolve the same on the merits. . With the promulgation of A.00.200. 8486. Thus. in accordance with Rule 40.M. petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration which the Comelec En Banc denied in the Resolution dated January 21. does not affect the perfection of the appeal and does not result in outright or ipso facto dismissal of the appeal. 07-4-15-SC. 2008. To clarify the procedural rules on the payment of appeal fees. as amended. No. The resolution pertinently reads: xxx The non-payment or the insufficient payment of the additional appeal fee of P3. no longer applies. Petitioner argues that the true will of the people of Motiong in the May 14. The Comelec En Banc held that the Comelec did not acquire jurisdiction over the appeal because of the non-payment of the appeal fee on time. the COMELEC issued on July 15.200. the Comelec First Division correctly dismissed the appeal.[11] to wit: Sections 8 and 9.On March 28.200. Rule 40 of the Comelec rules require the payment of appeal fees in appealed election protest cases. Issue: Whether the Order of Comelec First Division and the Resolution of the Comelec En Banc dismissing petitioner’s appeal be set aside.00 to the COMELEC Cash Division.M. the previous rule that the appeal is perfected only upon the full payment of the appeal fee. to the COMELEC Cash Division within the period to appeal. 07-4-15-SC also provide the procedure for instituting an appeal and the required appeal fees to be paid for the appeal to be given due course.00 in Comelec Minute Resolution No. the instant petition for certiorari. 02-0130. Section 3 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. Hence. now pegged at P3. He asserts that the popular will of the people expressed in the election of public officers should not be defeated by reason of sheer technicalities. applying the mandated liberal construction of election laws with regards to nonpayment or the insufficient payment of appeal fees. as amended. the amended amount of which was set at P3. Ruling: The Court granted the petition. which the Court takes judicial notice of. Rule 22 (Appeals from Decisions of Courts in Election Protest Cases) of the Comelec Rules of Procedure mandates that the notice of appeal must be filed within five (5) days after promulgation of the decision Moreover. Rule 14 of A. Resolution No. 2008. Section 3. as stated in the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. Sections 3 and 4. 2009. the COMELEC may refuse to take action thereon until they are paid and may dismiss the action or the proceeding. the COMELEC is merely given the discretion to dismiss the appeal or not. This is especially true in this case where only one vote separates the contending parties. The petition is granted. the Comelec should have initially directed the petitioner to pay the correct appeal fee with the Comelec Cash Division. Applying the mandated liberal construction of election laws. This liberality is for the purpose of promoting the effective and efficient implementation of the objectives of ensuring the holding of free. . Section 18 of the same rules. The COMELEC First Division should have been more cautious in dismissing petitioners appeal on the mere technicality of non-payment of the additional P3. In such a situation. The Court stresses once more that election law and rules are to be interpreted and applied in a liberal manner so as to give effect. Section 9 (a) of the COMELEC Rules. in accordance with the rules and with this disposition. peaceful and credible elections and for achieving just. and should not have dismissed outright petitioners appeal. This would have been more in consonance with the intent of the said resolution which sought to clarify the rules on compliance with the required appeal fees. Moreover. the Comelec Rules of Procedure are subject to a liberal construction. The case was REMANDED to the Comelec First Division for further proceedings.Following. the will of the electorate. not to frustrate. honest. Rule 22. the appeal may be dismissed. And pursuant to Rule 40.200. if the fees are not paid. expeditious and inexpensive determination and disposition of every action and proceeding brought before the Comelec. orderly.00 appeal fee given the public interest involved in election cases.
Report "Taguiam-V.-comelec and Pacanan v. Comelec"