In a consolidated decision, the Supreme Court clarified the rules for perfecting appeals in municipal election contests, particularly regarding the payment of appeal fees and the awarding of damages. The Court emphasized that while failing to pay the COMELEC appeal fee within the initially prescribed period might be a ground for dismissal, COMELEC Resolution No. 8486 allows payment within fifteen days from filing the notice of appeal with the lower court. Moreover, the Court ruled that moral damages are not sanctioned under current election law, and attorney’s fees require factual and legal justification, which were lacking in this case.

When Election Appeals Meet Deadlines and Damage Claims: A Fight for Justice

The consolidated petitions stemmed from election protest cases filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Juan, Southern Leyte, following the May 10, 2010 Automated Elections. Several candidates contested the election results for various local positions. The RTC rendered a Consolidated Decision on November 17, 2010, dismissing all election protests and ordering the petitioners to pay substantial moral damages and attorney’s fees to the private respondents. Aggrieved, the petitioners sought to appeal the RTC’s decision to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC).

However, the COMELEC First Division dismissed the appeals, citing the petitioners’ failure to pay the appeal fee within the reglementary period, relying on Section 4, Rule 40 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. The COMELEC En Banc later denied the petitioners’ motions for reconsideration, stating that the terms of the contested offices had already expired, rendering the appeals moot. Undeterred, the petitioners elevated the matter to the Supreme Court, questioning the COMELEC’s decisions and arguing that they had duly perfected their appeals and that the issue of damages remained relevant.

The Supreme Court began its analysis by clarifying the applicable rules. It noted that the COMELEC erroneously cited A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC, which was superseded by A.M. No. 10-4-1-SC for municipal election contests arising from the May 10, 2010 Automated Elections. Under Sections 8 and 9, Rule 14 of A.M. No. 10-4-1-SC, an appeal requires the filing of a notice of appeal and the simultaneous payment of an appeal fee of P1,000.00 to the trial court. In addition, Section 3, Rule 40 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure requires an additional P3,200.00 appeal fee.

Crucially, the Court addressed the issue of the COMELEC appeal fee and the effect of COMELEC Resolution No. 8486. The resolution clarifies the payment timelines and provides that if the appellant has already paid the P1,000.00 appeal fee to the lower court, they are required to pay the COMELEC appeal fee of P3,200.00 within fifteen days from the time of filing the Notice of Appeal with the lower court.

WHEREAS, payment of appeal fees in appealed election protest cases is also required in Section 3, Rule 40 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure the amended amount of which was set at P3,200.00 in COMELEC Minute Resolution No. 02-0130 made effective on September 18, 2002.

The Court emphasized that COMELEC Resolution No. 8486 effectively extended the period for paying the COMELEC appeal fee. However, it also found that not all the petitioners properly complied with this resolution. Petitioners Lim-Bungcaras and Pamaos made their payments within the 15-day period. The other petitioners failed to remit the appeal fee, only attaching photocopies of the money orders issued in the names of Lim-Bungcaras and Pamaos as proof of payment. This was deemed insufficient because Section 3, Rule 40 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure requires each individual appellant to pay the fee.

Despite some appeals not being perfected, the Court addressed the COMELEC En Banc’s decision to dismiss the appeals as moot due to the expiration of the contested terms. Citing Malaluan v. Commission on Elections, the Court held that when a decision includes a monetary award, the issue of that award is not moot upon the expiration of the term of office. Therefore, the question of the petitioners’ liability for the monetary awards remained a live issue.

When the appeal from a decision in an election case has already become moot, the case being an election protest involving the office of mayor the term of which had expired, the appeal is dismissible on that ground, unless the rendering of a decision on the merits would be of practical value.

Turning to the merits of the monetary awards, the Court found that the trial court erred in awarding moral damages. It highlighted that Section 259 of the Omnibus Election Code only allows for the award of actual or compensatory damages, unlike previous election codes that explicitly permitted moral and exemplary damages. This omission, the Court reasoned, demonstrates a legislative intent to disallow the award of other types of damages.

Furthermore, the Court addressed the award of attorney’s fees. Section 2, Rule 15 of A.M. No. 10-4-1-SC states that the trial court may award attorney’s fees, but they must be just and supported by the pleadings and evidence. The Court noted that the private respondents failed to adduce sufficient evidence to support their claim for attorney’s fees. The court’s finding that the petitioners were guilty of bad faith in filing their election protests was deemed conjectural and unjustified, as the failure to adduce substantial evidence does not automatically equate to bad faith.

The Court acknowledged that some parties had failed to perfect their appeals, it noted that the grounds for reversal applied to all the petitioners. Thus, it extended the benefit of its ruling to all parties, citing previous cases where the rights and liabilities of the parties were so interwoven and dependent on each other as to be inseparable. Therefore, it would be unjust to limit the ruling to those who successfully appealed.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the petitioners perfected their appeals by timely paying the required appeal fees and whether the issues raised were rendered moot by the expiration of the contested offices. The Court also reviewed the propriety of the trial court’s award of moral damages and attorney’s fees.
What is COMELEC Resolution No. 8486?	COMELEC Resolution No. 8486 clarifies the rules on appeal fees for election cases decided by trial courts. It allows appellants fifteen days from filing the notice of appeal in the trial court to pay the COMELEC appeal fee.
Did all the petitioners perfect their appeals?	No, only petitioners Lim-Bungcaras and Pamaos perfected their appeals by timely paying both the trial court and COMELEC appeal fees. The other petitioners failed to remit their individual COMELEC appeal fees.
Why did the COMELEC dismiss the appeals?	The COMELEC First Division dismissed the appeals due to the petitioners’ failure to pay the COMELEC appeal fee within the initial five-day period. The COMELEC En Banc later dismissed the appeals as moot, citing the expiration of the contested terms.
Can moral damages be awarded in election contests?	No, the Supreme Court clarified that under the current Omnibus Election Code, only actual or compensatory damages can be awarded in election contests. The provisions allowing for moral and exemplary damages in previous election codes have been omitted.
What is required for an award of attorney’s fees in election contests?	For an award of attorney’s fees, the award must be just and supported by pleadings and evidence of the party concerned. Additionally, the circumstances must align with those outlined in Article 2208 of the Civil Code, such as the defendant’s act compelling the plaintiff to litigate.
Why did the Court reverse the award of attorney’s fees?	The Court reversed the award of attorney’s fees because the private respondents did not provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. The court also found that the petitioners’ lack of success in their election protests did not by itself prove bad faith, which is a requirement for awarding attorney’s fees.
Did the reversal of the judgment benefit all petitioners, even those who didn’t perfect their appeal?	Yes, the Court extended the benefit of its ruling to all the petitioners, including those who did not perfect their appeals, because the grounds for reversal applied to all. The case involved interrelated rights and liabilities.

This decision clarifies the specific requirements for perfecting appeals in municipal election contests and limits the types of damages that can be awarded. The Supreme Court’s emphasis on strict compliance with procedural rules, coupled with its interpretation of the Omnibus Election Code, serves as a guide for future election disputes.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.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: JOCELYN “JOY” LIM-BUNGCARAS v. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 209415-17, November 15, 2016