CCHOPE ELECTION 2001

DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO PAY THE REQUIRED FILING FEES

Petitioner contends that private respondent's protest should have been dismissed outright as the latter failed to pay the amount of P300.00 filing fee required under the COMELEC rules.⁸ [Id., at 605, 612.] Petitioner's contention is supported by Section 9, Rule 35 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure ⁹ [Filing fee. --- No protest, counter-protest, or protest-in-intervention shall be given due course without the payment of a filing fee in the amount of three hundred pesos (P300.00) for each interest.

Each interest shall further pay the legal research fee as required by law.

If a claim for damages and attorney’s fees are set forth in a protest, counter-protest or protest-in-intervention, an additional filing fee shall be paid in accordance with the schedule provided for in the Rules of Court of the Philippines.] and corresponding receipts ¹⁰ [Rollo, pp. 112-113, 229, 271, 315, 331, 333, 404, 407.] itemized as follows:

P368.00 - Filing fee in EC 31-98, O.R. 7023752;

P  32.00 - Filing fee in EC 31-98, O.R. 7022478;

P  46.00 - Summons fee in EC 31-98, O.R. 7023752;

P    4.00 - Summons fee in EC 31-98, O.R. 4167602;

P  10.00 -- Legal Research Fund fee, O.R. 2595144, and;

P    5.00 -- Victim Compensation Fund, O.R. 4167979

-----------

P465.00

Close scrutiny of the receipts will show that private respondent failed to pay the filing fee of P300.00 for his protest as prescribed by the COMELEC rules.  The amount of P368.00 for which OR 7023752 was issued for the Judiciary Development Fund as shown by the entries in the cash book of the clerk of court.¹¹ [Id. at 331.] Thus, only P32.00 with OR 7022478 credited to the general fund could be considered as filing fee paid by private respondent for his protest.  A court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fee.¹² [Suson vs. Court of Appeals, 278 SCRA 284, 291 (1997).] Patently, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over private respondent's election protest.  Therefore, COMELEC gravely erred in not ordering the dismissal of private respondent's protest case.

We have in a string of cases ¹³ [Miranda vs. Castillo, 274 SCRA 503 (1997); Loyola vs. COMELEC, 337 Phil 134 (1997); Gatchalian vs. Court of Appeals, 315 Phil 195 (1995); Pahilan vs. Tabalba, 230 SCRA 205 (1994).] had the occasion to rule on this matter. In Loyola vs. COMELEC, the clerk of court assessed private respondent therein the incorrect filing fee of P32.00 at the time of filing of the election protest.  Upon filing his counter-protest, petitioner was assessed to pay the same amount.  Subsequently, the trial court remedied the situation by directing the parties to pay the balance of P268.00.  On review, we held that the lapse was not at all attributable to private respondent and there was substantial compliance with the filing fee requirement.  The error lies in the Clerk's misapplication and confusion regarding application of Section 9 of Rule 35 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure and this Court's resolution dated September 4, 1990 amending Rule 141 of the Rules of Court.  An election protest falls within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court, in which case the Rules of Court will apply, and that the COMELEC Rules of Procedure is primarily intended to govern election cases before that tribunal.  But the Court declared that this decision must not provide relief to parties in future cases involving inadequate payment of filing fees in election cases.  Our decisions in Pahilan and Gatchalian bar any claim of good faith, excusable negligence or mistake in any failure to pay the full amount of filing fees in election cases.

Clearly then, errors in the payment of filing fees in election cases is no longer excusable.  And the dismissal of the present case for that reason is, in our view, called for.

For any inquiries or comment, you may contact the WEBMASTER
Last Updated: Thursday, April 19, 2001 06:30:36 AM