G.R. No. 124137 - ROY M. LOYOLA, VS. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ROLANDO ROSAS AND THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 89, IMUS, CAVITE.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the court denied the Motion to Dismiss the protest for lack of merit holding that there was only an incomplete payment of the correct filing fee and that protestant, pursuant to the courts order, paid the correct amount on October 16, 1995. With respect to the private respondents motion, the court said: x x x, the parties are hereby adjured to direct their respective revisors to exert more efforts to finish the revision proceedings as soon as possible. By virtue of the trial courts order, petitioner resorted to the instant Petition for Certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of herein public respondent Judge in denying his Motion to Dismiss Protest. On January 25, 1996, the Commission En Banc issued a Temporary Restraining Order against the respondent Judge directing him to cease and desist from further conducting revision of ballots and hearing Election Case No. 95-1 entitled Rosas vs. Loyola until further orders from the Commission. On February 5, 1996, private respondent filed his answer alleging, among others, that the case is not a case of non-payment of filing fee but a clear case of incomplete payment of filing fee and not a ground for dismissing the election protest. He advanced the argument that both petitioner and private respondent have complied with the order of the respondent Judge to pay the balance of the correct amount of filing fee for petitioners counter-protest and for private respondents election protest. The COMELEC held that the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the protest pursuant to this Courts ruling in Pahilan v. Tabalba, [2] where there was merely incomplete payment of the filing fee. It disagreed with petitioners view that the applicable doctrine was that laid down in Gatchalian v. Court of Appeals, [3] and ratiocinated as follows: It cannot be gainsaid that private respondent Rolando Rosas paid the amount of P268.00 on October 16, 1995 representing the balance of the correct amount of filing fee. Consequently, there is no reason why the protest, filed within the ten-day period provided by the law, should not be given due course by the trial court. Besides, private respondent should not be faulted in not paying the correct amount of P300.00 as filing fee as he convincingly made it clear that it was the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court who asked him to pay the amount of P32.00 as filing fee for the protest. Moreover, it is highly preposterous to conclude that private respondent, who has paid other fees other than the questioned filing fee the amount of which is even higher than the correct filing fee, could deliberately and intentionally pay only an amount of P32.00 as filing fee. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner filed the instant special action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court contending that respondent COMELEC gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in not sustaining [his] contention and submission that said electoral pro