Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

"G.R. No. 199196 (Nelly Ramos v. Anacleto Baldo). - The Court DENIES WITH FINALITY the Motion for Reconsideration dated 16 February 2012 filed by petitioner Nelly Ramos for lack of merit.

The Court is unconvinced by the explanations offered by petitioner Ramos with respect to the technical defects in her Rule 65 Petition in relation to Rule 64. First, the assailed 08 August 2011 Resolution^[1]  and 07 October 2011 Order^[2] of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) attached to her Petition are not original copies or even certified true copies thereof, in violation of the Rules.^[3] Second, there was no indication in the Affidavit of Mailing/Explanation dated 11 November 2011 attached to the Petition that Ms. Mirasol B. Misanes is ''personally known, to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity" as required under the 2004 Notarial Rules.^[4] The notary public failed to explicitly state whether Ms. Misanes was personally known to him, or whether the latter presented competent evidence of her identity, except for the general averment that she was a messenger clerk in the law office of the notary public.^[5] Lastly, the Verification/Certification dated 11 November 2011 was improper because petitioner Ramos� counsel, who signed the Petition was the same person who notarized its Verification and Certification of non-forum shopping. Having prepared and signed the instant Petition, Atty. Agustin C. Tarroza is disqualified from notarizing the Verification portion of the said Petition.^[6] Neither did Atty. Tarroza, as a notary public, specify that he personally knew petitioner Ramos, or that any competent proof of her identity was presented to him.

Even if the Court were to set aside these technical defects under a liberal application of procedural rules, the arguments of petitioner Ramos lack considerable merit to warrant a review of the findings of the COMELEC. As the Court already ruled and hereby affirm, the COMELEC was not shown by petitioner to have committed any grave abuse of discretion in rendering the challenged resolution and order, which on the contrary appear to be in accord with the facts and applicable law and jurisprudence.

Lest petitioner Ramos be confused, a minute resolution dismissing a petition constitutes an adjudication on the merits of the controversy or subject matter of the petition. (Barriga v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 179307-10, 17 April 2009, 586 SCRA 63) When a minute resolution (signed by the Clerk of Court upon orders of the Court) denies or dismisses a petition or a motion for reconsideration for lack of merit, it is understood that the assailed decision or order � together with all its findings of fact and legal conclusions � are deemed sustained. (Diaz v. Republic, G.R. No. 181502, 02 February 2010, 611 SCRA 403) Contrary to the assertions of petitioner in her Motion for Reconsideration, the Court's reasons for denying her Petition can be found in the dispositions of the COMELEC itself, which the Court had duly affirmed.

To be clear, the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it ruled that the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Cabadbaran-Agusan del Norte had no authority to order the breaking of a tie in the case of the contested election between petitioner Ramos and respondent Anacleto Baldo. As pointed out by the COMELEC, the responsibility of breaking a tie between candidates statutorily lies with the board of canvassers as expressly stated in the Omnibus Election Code.^[7]  Indeed, the COMELEC justifiably ruled that "courts may order the breaking of a tie in accordance with Section[s] 240 and 71, supra, except when the results of the election protest resulting to a tie merely confirms the previous tie originally determined and already broken by the Board of Canvassers."^[8]  Hence, the Court finds that, based on the presentation made by petitioner Ramos, there is no compelling reason or grave abuse of discretion that would overturn the ruling of the COMELEC.cralaw

WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration dated 16 February 2012 filed by petitioner Nelly Ramos is DENIED WITH FINALITY. Petitioner raises no substantial arguments that would warrant the reversal of the Court's 17 January 2012 Resolution dismissing the instant Petition. No further pleadings will be entertained."

Del Castillo, J., on leave.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL
Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Annex "A" of the Petition dated 11 November 2011; rollo, pp. 20-34.

^[2] Annex "B" of the Petition dated 11 November 2011; rollo, pp. 35, 37-38. 

^[3] "The petition shall be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the judgment, final order or resolution subject thereof, together with certified true copies of such material portions of the record as are referred to therein and other documents relevant and pertinent thereto. The requisite number of copies of the petition shall contain plain copies of all documents attached to the original copy of said petition." (Rules of Court, Rule 65, Sec. 5, par. 2) 

^[4] A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, otherwise known as the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, Rule II, Sec. 2 (a) and Rule IV, Sec. 2 (b). 

^[5] "1. That I am one of the messenger-clerks in the law office of DOLLFUSS R. GO & ASSOCIATES, LAW OFFICE with address at Santiss, Obrero, Butuan City;" (Affidavit of Mailing/Explanation dated 11 November 2011, p. 1; rollo, p. 18) 

^[6] A notary public is disqualified from performing a notarial act if he is a party to the instrument or document that is to be notarized. (2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, Rule IV, Sec. 3 [a]) 

^[7] "Election resulting in tie. � Whenever it shall appear from the canvass that two or more candidates have received an equal and highest number of votes, or in cases where two or more candidates are to be elected for the same position and two or more candidates received the same number of votes for the last place in the number to be elected, the board of canvassers, after recording this fact in its minutes, shall by resolution, upon five days notice to all the tied candidates, hold a special public meeting at which the board of canvassers shall proceed to the drawing of lots of the candidates who have tied and shall proclaim as elected the candidates who may be favored by luck, and the candidates so proclaimed shall have the right to assume office in the same manner as if he had been elected by plurality of vote. The board of canvassers shall forthwith make a certificate stating the name of the candidate who had been favored by luck and his proclamation on the basis thereof. ..." (B.P. 881, Sec. 240, 1st paragraph) 

^[8] COMELEC Resolution dated 08 August 2011, pp. 9-10; rollo, pp. 28-29.