TL;DR

The Supreme Court ruled that petitioners Jocelyn Lim-Bungcaras and Aldrin Pamaos successfully appealed their election protest cases by timely paying the required appeal fees to the COMELEC, following COMELEC Resolution No. 8486 which allows payment within 15 days of filing the notice of appeal. The COMELEC First Division erred in dismissing their appeals for late payment. Although the terms of the contested offices expired, the Court addressed the issue of improperly awarded damages, clarifying that moral damages are not permissible in election contests under the Omnibus Election Code, and attorney’s fees require proper justification. The ruling benefits even those petitioners who did not perfect their appeals, as the reversal of the damages award applies to all due to the interconnected nature of the case.

When Deadlines Matter: Ensuring Your Election Appeal Isn’t Dismissed for Late Fees

This consolidated case, Lim-Bungcaras v. COMELEC, revolves around the crucial procedural aspect of perfecting appeals in election protest cases before the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). Specifically, it addresses the often-confusing rules regarding the payment of appeal fees and the consequences of non-compliance. The petitioners, who contested the results of the 2010 municipal elections in Saint Bernard, Southern Leyte, found their appeals dismissed by the COMELEC First Division for allegedly failing to pay the COMELEC appeal fees within the prescribed period. This dismissal was later affirmed by the COMELEC En Banc, which further declared the appeals moot due to the expiration of the contested terms of office. The Supreme Court, however, intervened to clarify the correct application of the rules and ultimately reversed the COMELEC’s decisions, albeit partially.

The heart of the procedural issue lies in the interpretation of COMELEC rules and resolutions concerning appeal fees. The COMELEC First Division relied on Section 4, Rule 40 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, which seemingly mandates payment of the appeal fee within the period to file the notice of appeal – five days from receipt of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) decision. However, the petitioners argued that COMELEC Resolution No. 8486 provided a 15-day period from the filing of the notice of appeal to pay the COMELEC appeal fee. The Supreme Court agreed with the petitioners, emphasizing that COMELEC Resolution No. 8486 clarified and effectively extended the payment period. The Court cited its previous ruling in Divinagracia v. COMELEC to dispel the COMELEC’s misinterpretation that Resolution No. 8486 only applied to appeals filed before July 27, 2009. The Supreme Court explicitly stated that Divinagracia aimed to reinforce the discretion granted to COMELEC by Resolution No. 8486, and that the 15-day payment period remained in effect for appeals filed after Divinagracia.

Applying this clarified rule, the Court found that petitioners Lim-Bungcaras and Pamaos had indeed perfected their appeals by paying the COMELEC appeal fee within 15 days of filing their notices of appeal with the RTC. Their payments, evidenced by postal money orders and official receipts, were deemed timely. However, the Court upheld the COMELEC’s dismissal of the appeals of petitioners Castil, Avendula, and the Ramadas, as they failed to provide proof of individual payment of the COMELEC appeal fee. Despite this partial dismissal based on procedural grounds, the Supreme Court proceeded to address a crucial substantive issue: the propriety of the RTC’s award of moral damages and attorney’s fees.

The COMELEC En Banc had dismissed the motions for reconsideration as moot, citing the expiration of the terms of office. The Supreme Court refuted this, invoking the exception to the mootness doctrine established in Malaluan v. COMELEC. This exception dictates that even if the contested office term expires, issues related to monetary awards remain justiciable. The Court then decisively ruled against the RTC’s award of moral damages, explaining that Section 259 of the Omnibus Election Code only permits the granting of actual or compensatory damages, explicitly omitting moral and exemplary damages which were allowed under previous election laws.

SEC. 259. Actual or compensatory damages. – Actual or compensatory damages may be granted in all election contests or in quo warranto proceedings in accordance with law.

This omission, the Court reasoned, reflects a clear legislative intent to disallow moral damages in election contests. Regarding attorney’s fees, while Section 2, Rule 15 of A.M. No. 10-4-1-SC allows for their adjudication, the Court found the RTC’s award unjustified. Attorney’s fees, as per Article 2208 of the Civil Code and jurisprudence, require factual, legal, and equitable justification, and cannot be awarded merely because a party was compelled to litigate. The Court found no sufficient evidence of bad faith on the part of the petitioners to warrant the award of attorney’s fees, thus nullifying this aspect of the RTC decision as well.

Importantly, the Supreme Court extended the benefit of its ruling—the reversal of the damages and attorney’s fees awards—to all petitioners, including those whose appeals were procedurally dismissed. Drawing upon the principle of interconnected rights and liabilities, and citing jurisprudence on the exception to the rule against benefiting non-appealing parties, the Court recognized that the error in awarding damages applied uniformly to all petitioners. This demonstrates the Court’s commitment to dispensing justice comprehensively, even when procedural hurdles exist for some parties. The decision underscores the importance of strictly adhering to procedural rules in election appeals, particularly concerning appeal fees and deadlines, while also ensuring that substantive justice prevails, especially regarding unwarranted monetary awards in election contests.

FAQs

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Lim-Bungcaras v. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 209415-17 & 210002, November 15, 2016