G.R. No. 196355 - BIENVENIDO WILLIAM D. LLOREN, VS. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ROGELIO PUA, JR..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the order issued on January 31, 2011 by the COMELEC First Division was null and void for being contrary to Resolution No. 8486. As to the order issued on March 16, 2011 by the COMELEC En Banc , the Court finds that the COMELEC En Banc was capricious and arbitrary in thereby denying petitioners motion for reconsideration on the ground that he did not simultaneously pay the motion fee of P300.00 prescribed by Section 7(f), Rule 40 of the 1993 Rules of Procedure. The non-payment of the motion fee of P300.00 at the time of the filing of the motion for reconsideration did not warrant the outright denial of the motion for reconsideration, but might only justify the COMELEC to refuse to take action on the motion for reconsideration until the fees were paid, or to dismiss the action or proceeding when no full payment of the fees is ultimately made. The authority to dismiss is discretionary and permissive, not mandatory and exclusive, as expressly provided in Section 18, Rule 40 of the 1993 Rules of Procedure itself, to wit: Section 18. Non-payment of Prescribed Fees . - If the fees above prescribed are not paid, the Commission may refuse to take action thereon until they are paid and may dismiss the action or the proceeding . (emphasis supplied) The evident intent of rendering Section 18, Rule 40 of the 1993 Rules of Procedure discretionary and permissive is to accord the movant an opportunity to pay the motion fee in full. The dire outcome of denial of the motion for reconsideration should befall the movant only upon his deliberate or unreasonable failure to pay the fee in full. It appears, however, that petitioners failure to pay the motion fee simultaneously with his filing of the motion for reconsideration was neither deliberate nor unreasonable. He actually paid the fee by postal money order on March 3, 2011. [17] In light of his having complied with the requirements for a timely perfection of the appeal in both the RTC and the COMELEC, and considering that he actually paid the motion fee, the COMELEC En Bancs strict and rigid application of the discretionary and permissive rule amounted to giving undue primacy to technicality over substance. That outcome would not be just to petitioner, for the COMELEC En Banc would close its eyes to the patent error committed by the First Division in entirely ignoring Resolution No. 8486. Accordingly, the assailed order of March 16, 2011 is another nullity to be struck down. 2. Substantive Question: Petitioners election protest lacks merit Nonetheless, we affirm the dismissal by the RTC of EPC No. H-026 for being in accord with the Rules in A.M. No. 10-4-1-SC. Section 10(c), Rule 2 of the Rules in A.M. No. 10-4-1-SC pertinently provides as follows: Section 10. Contents of the protest or petition. xxxx c. An election protest shall also state: (i) that the protestant was a candidate who had duly filed a certificate of candidacy and had been voted for the same office; (ii) the total number of preci