Melendres v COMELEC

Facts:

Melendres (who lost the Brgy. Chairman position to Concepcion in the May 1997 elections) filed an election protest at the Metropolitan Trial Court, Pasig contesting results of the elections. After preliminary hearing, it was found that no filing of docket fee was paid by Melendres (which was required in Sec.6, Rule 37 of COMELEC Rules of Procedure) so Concepcion moved to dismiss the case on grounds of failure to comply with it. Trial Court denied the motion to dismiss and said that the case should be continued on the ground that the filing of docket fee is merely an admin. procedural matter and not jurisdictional. Concepcion elevated the case for COMELEC to decide on and ruling was that the Trial Court should cease and desist form further acting on the Election case.

Main issue:

W/N COMELEC acted with a grave abuse of discretion in its ruling

Sub-issue:

W/N payment of filing fee in an election protest is a jurisdictional req’t

Held:

Sub-issue: No. The payment of filing fee is an admin. procedural matter, proceeding as it does from an admin. body. Sec 6, Rule 37 of COMELEC Rules of Procedure is explicit and does not speak of conferment of jurisdiction upon the Trial Court or acquisition by the Court of jurisdiction upon payment of filing fee. Contemporaneous construction is resorted for certainty and predictability in laws esp. those involving specific terms having tech. agencies.

Main Issue: No. COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in its ruling. The interpretation of an admin. gov’t agency is accorded with great respect and ordinarily controls the construction of the courts. When it renders an opinion or issues a statement of policy, it merely interprets a pre-existing law. Courts give weight to gov’t agency or officials charged with the implementation of law, their competence, expertness, experience and informed judgment.