GR 124137; (March, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 124137 March 25, 1997
ROY M. LOYOLA, petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ROLANDO ROSAS and the REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 89, IMUS, CAVITE, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Roy M. Loyola was proclaimed the elected Mayor of Carmona, Cavite. Private respondent Rolando Rosas filed an election protest before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The Clerk of Court erroneously assessed and collected only P32 as the filing fee instead of the required P300. Loyola filed a Motion to Dismiss the protest for non-payment of the correct filing fee, arguing this defect deprived the court of jurisdiction, citing Gatchalian v. Court of Appeals. The RTC denied the motion, noting it was a case of incomplete payment, not total non-payment, as Rosas had paid the P268 deficiency when ordered by the court. Loyola himself had also paid only P32 for his counter-protest and later paid the same deficiency.
The COMELEC upheld the RTC, applying Pahilan v. Tabalba, which distinguished incomplete payment from non-payment. Loyola elevated the case via certiorari, insisting Gatchalian controlled and required full payment as a jurisdictional prerequisite.
ISSUE
Is full payment of the P300 filing fee a jurisdictional requirement in election protests, such that incomplete payment at filing warrants dismissal?
RULING
No. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the trial court validly acquired jurisdiction. The legal logic distinguishes between total non-payment and incomplete payment of the filing fee. Gatchalian involved a complete absence of payment, which is jurisdictional. Pahilan, which remains good law, governs situations where a partial payment was made in good faith, allowing the deficiency to be paid within a reasonable time to cure the defect. The Court found Rosas acted in good faith by relying on the Clerk of Court’s erroneous assessment. Both parties later complied with the court’s order to pay the balance, thereby perfecting payment.
The Court emphasized that election cases involve public interest, and technicalities should not hinder the determination of the true will of the electorate. However, it issued a prospective warning: henceforth, Pahilan and this decision would no longer excuse any failure to pay the full filing fee, barring claims of good faith or mistake in future cases. The RTC was directed to proceed with the election protest with dispatch.