1.)​ Ollesca v. Comelec, G.R. No. 258449, July 30, 2024 [Per J.

Leonen, EnBanc]

Topic: Motion for reconsideration from Division ruling

Facts:
ETHIDa

The Resolution ruled on the COMELEC Law Department's petition to cancel and/or deny
due course of Ollesca's Certificate of Candidacy on the ground that Ollesca is a nuisance
candidate, whereas the Order denied Ollesca's Motion for Reconsideration of the said
Resolution.

Ollesca filed his Certificate of Candidacy with the COMELEC for the position of president
of the Philippines in the May 9, 2022 National and Local Elections.

In his Certificate of Candidacy, Ollesca stated that he is runningas an independent

candidate and indicated that he is an entrepreneur.

The COMELEC Law Department filed, on its own initiative,a Petition to declare Ollesca as
a nuisance candidate and asked that the COMELEC deny due course to or cancel
Ollesca's Certificate of Candidacy. It asserted that considering that Ollesca filed his
Certificate of Candidacy to run for president, he should be publicly known by numerous
voters.

He is running as an independent candidate and is largely unknown outside his local area.
Therefore, he lacks the ability to run a nationwide campaign and attract voters from across
the country. Given this, he seems to lack a genuine intention to run, which undermines the
integrity of the election process.

Ollesca was instructed by the COMELEC Second Division to respond to the Petition,
which he did by filing his Answer. He claimed that the COMELEC Law Department's
allegations were unfounded and merely speculative, failing to prove his lack of genuine
intent to run or any actions aimed at confusing voters. He also argued that the
COMELEC's petition relied on his supposed lack of financial capacity for a nationwide
campaign, effectively creating an unconstitutional property qualification without a legal
basis.
TIADCc
In its resolution, the COMELEC Second Division granted the nuisance petition against
Ollesca. It found that Ollesca, who was an independent with no political party, was
unknown outside of the community he belonged to and failedto show that he had the
financial capacity to "sustain a decent and viable nationwide campaign on his own."

Thus, Ollesca allegedly filed his Certificate of Candidacy "to put the election process in
mockery or disrepute and, by the said act or circumstance, he has no bona fide intention
to run for President."

Ollesca received a copy of the Resolution on December 15, 2021 and filed his
Motion for Reconsideration on December 20, 2021 via email.

On December 21, 2021, the Office of the Clerk of the Commission emailed Ollesca the
assessed fees.

He paid the assessed fees on the same day and submitted an Official Receipt dated
December 21, 2021 as proof of payment of the prescribed filing fee within the prescribed
period.

Through its January 3, 2022 Order, the COMELEC En Banc denied Ollesca's
Motion for Reconsideration for being filed beyond the five-day reglementary period
prescribed, as well as for being filed without paying the fees required by its Rules of
Procedure.

It was noted that JUAN JUAN OLILA OLLESCA received the Resolution declaring him a
nuisance candidate via email on December 15, 2021. He filed his Motion for
Reconsideration at 5:01 p.m. on December 20, 2021, which was acknowledged on
December 21, exceeding the five-day deadline. Additionally, there is no record of him
paying the required filing fee on time. Therefore, the Motion was filed late.

Hence the present Petition.

Here, petitioner Ollesca asserts that the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in declaring that his
Motion for Reconsideration was filed out of time and declaring him as a nuisance
candIdate.
He stresses that he received a copy of the assailed Resolution on December 15, 2021 and
timely filed his Motion for Reconsideration on December 20,2021 at 5:00 p.m.

That he failed to submit any proof of payment of filing fees is belied by the Office of the
Clerk of the Commission's confirmation of receipt of the original receipt and the
COMELEC Second Division's referral of his Motion to the En Banc.
cSEDTC

Nonetheless, petitioner emphasizes that he had attached to his Answer proof of

his financial capacity to mount a campaign and pledges from different groups that their
members will support his presidency to prove that he had a bona fide intention to run as
president and had a "significant modicum of support" for his candidacy.

Petitioner likewise asseverates that his supposed financial incapability to mount a decent
and viable campaign is a prohibited property requirement.

In its Comment, respondent COMELEC counters that the Petition should be

dismissed for being moot and academic because it had already issued a Certified List of
Candidates for President and had begun printing official ballots for the elections.
In any case, it allegedly did not act with grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's
Motion for Reconsideration for being filed out of time (i.e., at 5:01 p.m. of December 20,
2021) because petitioner paid the prescribed filing fee beyond the reglementary period
and its Resolution declaring petitioner a nuisance candidate has become final.

Moreover, its finding that petitioner is a nuisance candidate was allegedly based on
petitioner's own declarations in his Certificate of Candidacy and on respondent's own
assessment which are allegedly based on evidence.

Petitioner's financial incapacity was "merely considered, together with other compelling
circumstances, to determine whether petitioner has bona fide intention to run."

In his Reply, while petitioner conceded that the case is moot and academic, he
argues that this Court must still decide on it because it is capable of repetition yet
evading review.

At any rate, his Motion for Reconsideration was timely filed and the filing fees were paid
on the same day they were assessed.
Contrary to the COMELEC's assertion, membership in, or nomination by, a political party
is not an essential element of bona fide intention to run for public office.

Moreover, theCOMELEC did not point to any circumstance, aside from petitioner's
financial capacity, to show petitioner's alleged lack of bona fide intention to run for public
office.
AIDSTE

Issue:
whether the Motion for Reconsideration was timely filed;

Ruling:

Rule 19, Section 2 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure provides:

Section 2.

Period for Filing Motions for Reconsideration. — A motion to reconsider a decision, resolution,
order or ruling of a Division shall be filed within five (5) days from the promulgation thereof.
Such motion, if not proforma, suspends the execution or implementation of the decision,
resolution, order or ruling.

In relation to this, Rule 2, Section 9 of COMELEC Resolution No. 10673 provides

that "electronic service is complete at the time of the electronic transmission of the
document, or when available, at the time that the electronic notification of service of the
document is sent."

Furthermore, "proof shall be made by an affidavit of service executed by the person who
sent the email . . . together with a printed proof of transmittal."
AaCTcI

In dismissing petitioner's Motion for being filed out of time, the COMELEC En
Banc seemed to tack the reckoning date on when the Motion was acknowledged by its
Office of the Clerk of the Commission, and not on the time of electronic transmission.

This is erroneous as the date of actual filing — that is, the date of electronic transmission
in case of transmission by electronic mail — is what must be taken note of, not the actual
date when the COMELEC acknowledged a pleading.

Based on the email thread where the Office of the Clerk of the Commission
acknowledged receipt of the Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner filed the said Motion
via email on December 20, 2021 on 5:00 p.m. — well-within the five-day prescribed
period.

That being said, we note that the payment of PHP1,000.00 for the motion for
reconsideration fee, albeit belated, is also not a sufficient reason to deny petitioner's
Motion outright:

In Lloren v. COMELEC, the Court chided the COMELEC for outrightly denying a motion for
reconsideration for the movant's failure to simultaneously pay the motion fee at the time
the motion was filed, when it could have just refused to act on the motion until the fee was
paid.

Lloren stated:
As to the order issued on March 16, 2011 by the COMELECEn Banc, the Court finds that the
COMELEC En Banc was capricious and arbitrary in thereby denying petitioner's motion for
reconsideration on the ground that hedid 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 [Commission on Elections] 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.

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
petitioner's 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.

This Court notes that, in light of the conclusion of the 2022 National Presidential
Elections, as well as the proclamation of the candidate receiving the highest number of
votes as the president of the Philippines, the case is rendered moot and academic. In
other words, the complained actions by petitioner, even if wrong, will not undo the
outcome of the election.
acEHCD