View full case

NILO T. PATES v. COMELEC

FACTS:

This case involves a motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner Nilo T. Pates (petitioner) after the COMELEC en banc issued a Resolution denying his previous motion for reconsideration. The petitioner argues that his motion for reconsideration should be considered as a fresh petition, based on the "fresh period" rule enunciated by the Supreme Court in previous cases. He claims that historically, the fresh period rule was the prevailing rule in filing petitions for certiorari, but was changed when the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and Circular No. 39-98 were promulgated. He also cites A.M. No. 00-02-03-SC, which supposedly brought back the fresh period rule. The petitioner argues that this fresh period rule was subsequently applied by the Supreme Court in various cases. The Office of the Solicitor General asked to be excused from filing a separate comment, while respondent Emelita B. Almirante argues that the petition was filed out of time and that the petitioner's reliance on Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is misplaced, as Rule 64 is the applicable rule for review of COMELEC decisions and provides for a 30-day filing period.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the petitioner's motion for reconsideration is meritorious.

  2. Whether the fresh period rule applicable to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 should also apply to petitions for certiorari of COMELEC rulings filed under Rule 64.

  3. Whether the petitioner presented any exceptional circumstance or compelling reason to warrant the non-application of Section 3, Rule 64 to his petition.

  4. Whether the petitioner provided any reason specific to his case why the fresh period rule should be adopted and applied to his election case.

  5. Whether the period for filing petitions for certiorari under Rule 64 should be modified.

  6. Whether the rules should be suspended to accommodate a litigant whose counsel made a mistake in applying the applicable provision.

RULING:

  1. The motion for reconsideration is not meritorious.

  2. The fresh period rule applicable to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 should not be applied to petitions for certiorari of COMELEC rulings filed under Rule 64.

  3. The petitioner did not present any exceptional circumstance or compelling reason to warrant the non-application of Section 3, Rule 64 to his petition.

  4. The petitioner did not provide any reason specific to his case why the fresh period rule should be adopted and applied to his election case.

  5. The Court held that the required period for filing petitions for certiorari under Rule 64 should not be modified. While the convenience and uniformity of using uniform standards may have merits, the prompt determination of election results, as mandated by the Constitution, is of greater importance. The Court emphasized that the Constitution and Section 3, Article IX-C specifically require the COMELEC's rules of procedure to expedite the disposition of election cases. The need for haste in deciding election cases far outweighs convenience and uniformity.

  6. The Court refused to suspend the rules to accommodate a litigant whose counsel made a mistake in applying the applicable provision. The Rules of Court are meant to facilitate the prompt and orderly administration of justice, and litigants cannot simply seek exceptions or liberal construction of these rules after resorting to a wrong legal remedy. The exercise of liberal construction has limits and should only be applied in the most appropriate cases.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Procedural rules should be treated with utmost respect and due regard as they are designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases and ensure the orderly and speedy administration of justice.

  • The liberal interpretation and application of procedural rules can only be resorted to in proper cases and under justifiable causes and circumstances.

  • Exceptional circumstances or compelling reasons may justify the suspension or non-application of the Rules of Court, but the burden of proving this lies on the party seeking such exception.

  • The power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules on practice and procedure is separate from its adjudicatory function and requires the formulation of policies, not the determination of legal rights and obligations of individual litigants.

Partial Digest

  • The prompt determination of election results is constitutionally mandated.

  • The COMELEC's rules of procedure should expedite the disposition of election cases.

  • Technical rules of procedure are not designed to frustrate the ends of justice, but to effect the prompt, proper, and orderly disposition of cases.

  • Liberal construction of rules has limits and must be exercised only in the most appropriate cases.