Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FERDINAND THOMAS M. SOLLER v. COMELEC

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 167224 2007-09-21	NOLITO L. MAÑAGO v. COMELEC QUISUMBING, J.
Mañago contends that the COMELEC failed to apply the doctrine in Soller v. Commission on Elections,[10] where the Court ruled that errors in the payment of filing fees in election cases are no longer excusable.[11] Bigay, on the other hand, claims that the doctrine is inapplicable since petitioner is guilty of estoppel.[12]
	GR NO. 168296 2007-01-31	FELOMINO V. VILLAGRACIA v. COMELEC PUNO, CJ
WHETHER THE COMELEC ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE USE OF THE WORDS "JOKER", "QUEEN", "ALAS", AND "KAMATIS", IN MORE THAN ONE BALLOT WOULD CONSTITUTE MARKED BALLOTS.[6] Petitioner contends that had public respondent followed the doctrine in Soller v. COMELEC,[7] it would have sustained the ruling of the First Division that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear the election protest due to private respondent's failure to pay the correct filing fees.
	GR NO. 147749 2006-06-22	SAN PABLO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. CIR CORONA, J.
SPMC's petition in the Court of Appeals did not indicate that the person who signed the verification/certification on non-forum shopping was authorized to do so. SPMC merely relied on the alleged inherent power of its chief financial officer to represent SPMC in all matters regarding the finances of the corporation including, among others, the filing of suits to defend or protect it from assessments and to recover erroneously paid taxes. SPMC even admitted that no power of attorney, secretary's certificate or board resolution to prove the affiant's authority was attached to the petition. Thus, the petition was not properly verified. Since the petition lacked proper verification, it was to be treated as an unsigned pleading subject to dismissal.[12]
	GR No. 158610 2004-11-12	ESTEBAN M. ZAMORAS v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
The Court stressed in Loyola v. COMELEC,[14] promulgated on 25 March 1997, that there is no longer any excuse for shortcomings in the payment of filing fees. The Court ruled that the case bars "any claim of good faith, excusable negligence or mistake in any failure to pay the full amount of filing fees in election cases which may be filed after the promulgation of this decision." The Court reiterated the Loyola doctrine in Miranda v. Castillo,[15] Soller v. Commission on Elections,[16] and Villota v. Commission on Elections.[17] In these cases, the Court warned that error in the payment of filing fees in election cases is no longer excusable. The Court declared that "it would no longer tolerate any mistake in the payment of the full amount of filing fees for election cases filed after the promulgation of the Loyola decision on March 25, 1997."
	GR No. 157957 2003-09-18	CHARITO NAVAROSA v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
Respondent Esto must pay this filing fee before the trial court can exercise its jurisdiction over the election protest.[8] The COMELEC filing fee, to distinguish from the other mandatory fees under Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as amended, is credited to the Court's General Fund.[9]
	GR No. 157957 2003-09-18	CHARITO NAVAROSA v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
Indeed, in Miranda and Loyola, as in every other case[19] where we sustained the dismissal of the election protest for lack or incomplete payment of the COMELEC filing fee, the protestee timely raised the non-payment in a motion to dismiss. Before any revision of the contested ballots, the protestee filed a petition for certiorari questioning the trial court's jurisdiction before the COMELEC and eventually before this Court. In contrast, in the instant case, petitioner Navarosa did not raise the incomplete payment of the COMELEC filing fee in a motion to dismiss. Consequently, the trial court proceeded with the revision of the contested ballots and subsequently rendered judgment on the election protest. Petitioner Navarosa raised for the first time the incomplete payment of the COMELEC filing fee in her memorandum before the COMELEC Second Division.
	GR No. 146724 2001-08-10	GIL TAROJA VILLOTA v. COMELEC YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In Soller v. COMELEC, et al.,[8] reiterating the cases of Loyola v. COMELEC, et al.,[9] and Miranda v. Castillo, et al.,[10] the Court stressed the caveat that errors in the payment of filing fees in election cases is no longer excusable. Thus, on the matter of non-payment or incomplete payment of filing fees we opined that: "the Court would no longer tolerate any mistake in the payment of the full amount of filing fees for election cases filed after the promulgation of the Loyola decision on March 25, 1997."[11]