373 Phil. 680
GONZAGA_REYES, J.:
“The parties in this case were rival candidates for the Punong Barangay of Barangay Ilaya, Las Piñas City, Metro Manila. After the board of canvassers proclaimed protestee-appellant Rustico Antonio, protestant-appellee Vicente T. Miranda, Jr. filed an election protest docketed as Election Protest Case No. 97-0017 against Antonio before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Las Piñas City (Branch LXXIX). The trial court rendered a Decision dated 9 March 1998, the dispositive portion of which states:The instant Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED and We AFFIRM the Order dated 3 August 1998 of this Commission (Second Division).”[3]WHEREFORE, the Court declares the protestant Vicente Miranda as the duly elected Barangay Chairman of Barangay Ilaya, Las Piñas City, Metro Manila.Antonio admitted receipt of the above-quoted decision on 18 March 1998. Subsequently, Antonio filed a Notice of Appeal with the trial court on 27 March 1998 or nine (9) days after receipt thereof. Meanwhile, Miranda moved to execute the trial court’s decision. Rustico, in his Opposition to the Motion for Execution or Execution Pending Appeal, argued against Miranda’s motion for execution. After the trial court denied the motion for execution, the records of this case was forwarded to the Commission (Second Division).
On 10 August 1998, protestee-appellant Rustico Antonio received from this Commission (Second Division) an Order dated 3 August 1998 stating as follows:In the light of the aforequoted rules, protestee RUSTICO ANTONIO, failed to perfect his appeal within the five (5) days period prescribed for perfecting his appeal, as he filed his Notice of Appeal only on March 27, 1998 or nine (9) days after receipt of the decision sought to be appealed.
The Period aforestated is jurisdictional and failure of the protestee to perfect his appeal within the said period deprives the Commission of its appellate jurisdiction.
ACCORDINGLY, the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.”
Hence, this motion for reconsideration.
In dismissing the appeal, the COMELEC relied on Section 21, Rule 35 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure which reads:
“(a) In barangay electoral protest cases, the period of appeal is ten (10) days from receipt of the decision of the Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Court. This is provided for by Sec. 9 of R.A. 6679 and Sec. 252 of the Omnibus Election Code (b) The provisions of Sec. 21, Rule 37 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure providing for a five-day period within which to appeal from the decision of the Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Court could not prevail upon the express provisions of Rep. Act No. 6679 and Sec. 252 of the Omnibus Election Code; (c) Moreover, the COMELEC committed an error of jurisdiction when it disregarded the provisions of Sections 5,6 & 7, Rule 22 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure requiring the filing of briefs by the appellant and the appellee. The questioned resolution of August 3, 1998 was issued motu propio and without prior notice and hearing. The petitioner was fast tracked; (d) The alleged winning margin of the private respondent over the petitioner as found by the Metropolitan Trial Court of Las Piñas is only four (4) votes the results being MIRANDA – 1,171; ANTONIO – 1,167. The people’s will must not go on procedural points. “An election protest involves public interest, and technicalities should not be sanctioned when it will be an obstacle in the determination of the true will of the electorate in the choice of its public officials.” [Macasundig vs. Macalanagan, 13 SCRA 577; Vda. De Mesa vs. Mensias, 18 SCRA 533; Juliano vs. Court of Appeals, 20 SCRA 808; Genete vs. Archangel, 21 SCRA 1178; Maliwanag vs. Herrera, 25 SCRA 175; De Castro vs. Genete, 27 SCRA 623] (e) The questioned resolutions violated the above principle because the COMELEC did not appreciate the contested ballots.”[4]
“SEC. 21. Appeal – From any decision rendered by the court, the aggrieved party may appeal to the Commission on Elections within five (5) days after the promulgation of the decision.”On the other hand, petitioner contends that the period of appeal from decisions of the Municipal Trial Courts or Metropolitan Trial Courts involving barangay officials is governed by Section 9 of Republic Act 6679 and Section 252 of the Omnibus Election Code.
“SEC. 9. A sworn petition contesting the election of a barangay official may be filed with the proper municipal or metropolitan trial court by any candidate who has duly filed a certificate of candidacy and has been voted for a barangay office within ten (10) days after the proclamation of the results of the election. The trial court shall decide the election protest within thirty (30) days after the filing thereof. The decision of the municipal or metropolitan trial court may be appealed within ten (10) days from receipt of a copy thereof by the aggrieved party to the regional trial court which shall decide the issue within thirty (30) days from receipt of the appeal and whose decision on questions of fact shall be final and non-appealable. For purposes of the barangay elections, no pre-proclamation cases shall be allowed.”In applying Section 21 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure rather than Section 9 of Republic Act 6779 and Section 252 of the Omnibus Election Code, the COMELEC rationalized thus:
Similarly, Section 252 of the Omnibus Election Code provides:
“SEC. 252. Election contest for barangay offices. – A sworn petition contesting the election of a barangay officer shall be filed with the proper municipal or metropolitan trial court by any candidate who has duly filed a certificate of candidacy and has been voted for the same office within ten days after the proclamation of the results of the election. The trial court shall decide the election protest within fifteen days after the filing thereof. The decision of the municipal or metropolitan trial court may be appealed within ten days from receipt of a copy thereof by the aggrieved party to the regional trial court which shall decide the case within thirty days from its submission, and whose decisions shall be final.”
“Antonio asserts that Section 9 of Republic Act 6679 and Section 252 of the Omnibus Election Code providing for a ten-day period to appeal prevails over the provisions of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. According to Antonio, quasi-judicial bodies, including this Commission, cannot amend an act of Congress and in case of discrepancy between the basic law and an interpretative or administrative ruling, the former prevails. Generally, yes. But the situation herein does not fall within the generic situation contemplated therein.Without adopting the foregoing ratiocination of the COMELEC, we nonetheless find the instant petition devoid of merit.
No less than the 1987 Constitution (Article IX-A, Section 6 and Article IX-C, Section 3) grants and authorizes this Commission to promulgate its own rules of procedure as long as such rules concerning pleadings and practice do not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights. Hence, the COMELEC Rules of Procedure promulgated in 1993 as amended in 1994 is no ordinary interpretative or administrative ruling. It is promulgated by this Commission pursuant to a constitutionally mandated authority which no legislative enactment can amend, revise or repeal.
The COMELEC Rules of Procedure (Rule 37 Section 21) provides that from the decision rendered by the court, the aggrieved party may appeal to the Commission on Elections within five (5) days after the promulgation of the decision. Rule 22 Section 9 (d) of Our Rules of Procedure further provides that an appeal from decisions of courts in election protest cases may be dismissed at the instance of the Commission for failure to file the required notice of appeal within the prescribed period.
In case at bar, Antonio filed his notice of appeal before the trial court on the ninth (9) day from receipt of the decision appealed from or four (4) days after the five-day prescribed period to appeal lapsed. Therefore, the present appeal must be dismissed. For it is axiomatic that the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period laid down by the COMELEC Rules of Procedure is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional. As a consequence, the failure to perfect an appeal within the prescribed period as required by the Rules has the effect of defeating the right of appeal of a party and precluding the appellate court from acquiring jurisdiction over the case. So the High Court rules in Villanueva vs. Court of Appeals, et.al. (205 SCRA 537). And so, it should also be in the case at bar.
Worth noting is that Our Rules of Procedure may be amended, revised or repealed pursuant to the 1987 Constitution (Article VIII Section 5[5]) providing that rules of procedure of … quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court. But far from being disapproved the COMELEC Rules of Procedure received approbation and has constantly been cited by the Supreme Court in a number of decisions such as in the case of Pahilan vs. Tabalba (230 SCRA 205, at 211) and Rodillas vs. Commission on Elections (245 SCRA 702, at 704). In the more recent case of Calucag vs. Commission on Elections promulgated on 19 June 1997 (G.R. N.o 123673), the Supreme Court stated that:
Therefore, the COMELEC is the proper appellate court clothed with jurisdiction to hear the appeal WHICH APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN FIVE DAYS AFTER THE PROMULGATION OF THE MTC DECISION…(page 4-5).
The repeated recognition given by the Supreme Court of this five-day rule within which to file the required notice of appeal will make questionable the legislative enactment providing for a ten-day period.”[5]
“1. Declaring Section 9 of Rep. Act No. 6679 UNCONSTITUTIONAL insofar as it provides that barangay election contests decided by the municipal or metropolitan trial court shall be appealable to the regional trial court:”Petitioner admits that the provisions in Republic Act No. 6679 and for that matter the Omnibus Election Code providing for appellate jurisdiction to the Regional Trial Court had been declared unconstitutional in the aforecited Flores case. A verbatim comparison of both provisions reveals that they provide the same remedy, that is, appeal from a decision of the municipal or metropolitan trial court in barangay election cases to the regional trial court. Both provisions provide that (1) results of a barangay election may be contested by filing a sworn petition with the municipal trial court within ten days from proclamation; (2) the MTC shall decide within thirty days per Republic Act No. 6679 or fifteen days per Omnibus Election Code; and (3) the decision of the municipal trial court may be appealed to the regional trial court within ten days from receipt by the aggrieved party, which decision is final and non-appealable. There is no appreciable basis to make a distinction between the two provisions, except for their different numbers, to advance that they provide for two different remedies. It would be superfluous to insist on a categorical declaration of the unconstitutionality of the appeal provided for in Sec. 252 of the Omnibus Election Code, as the same appeal in Sec. 9, Republic Act No. 6679 had already been categorically declared unconstitutional. Further, Sec. 252 of the Omnibus Election Code[8] as amended by the new law, Republic Act No. 6679[9], has in effect, been superseded by the latter. While the appellate procedure has been retained by the amendatory act, Republic Act No. 6679 nonetheless supersedes the verbatim provision in the Omnibus Election Code. Hence, it was not necessary for Flores to mention Sec. 252 of the Omnibus Election Code, considering that as aforestated, Section 9 of Republic Act No. 6679 was a mere reenactment of the former law.
“The general rule is that where part of a statute is void as repugnant to the Constitution, while another part is valid, the valid portion, if separable from the invalid, may stand and be enforced. The presence of a separability clause in a statute creates the presumption that the legislature intended separability, rather than complete nullity, of the statute. To justify this result, the valid portion must be so far independent of the invalid portion that it is fair to presume that the legislature would have enacted it by itself if it had supposed that it could not constitutionally enact the other. Enough must remain to make a complete, intelligible, and valid statute, which carries out the legislative intent. The void provisions must be eliminated without causing results affecting the main purpose of the act in a manner contrary to the intention of the legislature. The language used in the invalid part of the statute can have no legal effect or efficacy for any purpose whatsoever, and what remains must express the legislative will independently of the void part, since the court has no power to legislate.In the instant petition, the exception applies. Section 9 of Republic Act No. 6679 and Section 252 of the Omnibus Election Code, without the constitutionally infirm portion on the appellate jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts in barangay election protest cases, does not remain complete in itself, sensible, capable of being executed and wholly independent of the portion which was rejected. In other words, with the elimination of the forum, the period cannot stand on its own. Moreover, when this Court stated that “Section 9 of Rep. Act No. 6679 is declared unconstitutional insofar as it provides that barangay election contests decided by the municipal or metropolitan trial court shall be appealable to the regional trial court”, it meant to preserve the first two sentences on the original jurisdiction of municipal and metropolitan trial courts to try barangay election protests cases but not, as advanced by the petitioner, the ten-day period to appeal to the Regional Trial Court. This is the logical and sound interpretation of subject portion of the Flores case.
The exception to the general rule is that when the parts of a statute are so mutually dependent and connected, as conditions, considerations, inducements, or compensations for each other, as to warrant a belief that the legislature intended them as a whole the nullity of one part will vitiate the rest. In making the parts of the statute dependent, conditional, or connected with one another, the legislature intended the statute to be carried out as a whole and would not have enacted it if one part is void, in which case if some parts are unconstitutional, all the other provisions thus dependent, conditional, or connected must fall with them.[12]
“Sec. 22. Election Contests for Municipal Officers. – All election contests involving municipal offices filed with the Regional Trial Court shall be decided expeditiously. The decision may be appealed to the Commission within five (5) days from promulgation or receipt of a copy thereof by the aggrieved party. The Commission shall decide the appeal within sixty (60) days after it is submitted for decision, but not later than six (6) months after the filing of the appeal, which decision shall be final, unappealable and executory.”There would be no logic nor reason in ruling that a longer period to appeal to the COMELEC should apply to election contests for barangay officials.
“It follows that after the promulgation of Flores, the same arguments propounded therein by the petitioner may no longer be employed. Article 8 of the Civil Code states that “(j)udicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the constitution shall form part of the legal system of the Philippines.” Said pronouncement of the Court, having formed part of the law of the land, ignorance thereof can no longer be countenanced. Therefore, the COMELEC is the proper appellate court clothed with jurisdiction to hear the appeal, which appeal must be filed within five days after the promulgation of the MTC’s decision. The erroneous filing of the appeal with the RTC did not toll the running of the prescriptive period. xxx. The five-day period having expired without the aggrieved party filing the appropriate appeal before the COMELEC, the statutory privilege of petitioner to appeal is deemed waived and the appealed decisions has become final and executory.”Significantly, Section 5(5), Article VIII of the Constitution provides in part that “[r]ules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.”