ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 135931.December 7, 1999]
JESSIE O. BENDITA vs. SOLIVIO et al.
EN BANC
Gentlemen :
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated DEC 7, 1999 .
G.R. No. 135931(Jessie O. Bendita vs. Romulo O. Solivio, The Municipal Board of Canvassers of Surallah, South Cotabato, and Honorable Commission on Elections.)
Before the Court is a petition titled "Appeal for Review on Certiorari' assailing the Resolution 1 Rollo , pp. 20-24.of the COMELEC (First Division) dated June 15, 1998, and the Order 2 Id ., at 26.of the COMELEC en banc dated September 30, 1998.
Petitioner Jessie O. Bendita and private respondent Romulo O. Solivio were rival mayoralty candidates in Surallah, South Cotabato during the elections held on May 11, 1998 During the canvass of election returns by the Municipal Board of Canvassers, petitioner sought the exclusion of the election returns from twelve (12) polling Precincts. The Board, however, ruled that:
The Board of Canvassers has come to a common and unanimous decision that the pending objection/petitions to the deferred election returns be officially canvassed since the objecting party, the Lakas-NUCD has failed to comply with the requirements of Sec. 235 of the Omnibus Election Code and Comelec Resolution no. 2962.
The Board rules that the pending election returns be officially Canvassed now for the purpose of proclaiming the duly elected Municipal Officials of the Municipality of Surallah, Province of South Cotabato, considering the delay in the reglementary period of 36 hours Within which winner will be proclaimed. 3 Id ., at 20.
Upon completion of the canvass, the Board proclaimed private respondent as mayor.
On appeal by petitioner to the COMELEC, the COMELEC (First Division) issued the assailed Resolution dated June 15, 1998 dismissing the appeal and upholding the proclamation of private respondent, stating that:
With respect to election returns from Precincts Nos. 76-A; 78-A-1; 121-A; 147-A-3; 144-A; 147-A; 143-A; 143-A-1; and 145-A-1 which were objected on grounds of vote buying, voting of flying voters, voting of minors and other alleged irregularities in the casting or counting of votes the MBOC cannot look beyond the said election returns to verify allegations of irregularities, as these issues cannot be resolved by the MBOC. The doctrine that the board of canvassers has only the ministerial task of tallying the votes as reported in the election returns and cannot exercise the judicial power of deciding on election contest, has been established in-a long line of decisions. The board has no power to pass upon question of whether there are illegal voters or other election frauds and irregularities as this power belongs to another tribunal. In fine, the MBOC correctly included in the canvass, the aforementioned contested election returns 'as they did not reveal any irregularities or falsities on their face.'
With respect to the inclusion of the two (2) incomplete election returns in the canvass, BENDITA admitted that his opponent SOLIVIO obtained a plurality margins of 326 votes over his (Benditas) total garnered votes of 9,533. It follows that even if two hundred forty nine (249) votes of SOLIVIO (120 from Prec. 147-A-2 and 129 from Precinct No. 147-A-1) is deducted from the total votes of SOLIVIO which is 9,859, the same would not alter the result of the elections. 4 Id ., at 23-24.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration with respect only to four (4) Precincts, namely, Precinct Nos. 144-A, 147-A-1, 147-A-2 and 147-A-3. 5 Id ., at 104.The COMELEC en banc, however, issued the challenged Order dated September 30, 1998, ruling that:
The instant case, however, is not among those listed in the Omnibus Resolution on Pending Cases (Resolution No. 3049) Promulgated by this Commission (En Banc) on 29 June 1998 and Published in newspapers of general circulation on 30 June 1998 and 1 July 1998. Under the said resolution, cases listed in the annex therein Were found meritorious and shall, therefore, survive even after the term of office involved begins. As a consequence, this case is deemed closed and terminated No motion for reconsideration, therefore, may be entertained by this Commission.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant motion for reconsideration is hereby denied. 6 Id ., at 26.
Petitioner then elevated the case to this Court with the prayer that the COMELEC be ordered to act on his motion for reconsideration. 7 Id ., at 12.Citing the case of discretion Salih v. COMELEC, 8 G.R. No. 122872, September 10, 1997, 279 SCRA 19, per Hermosisima, J . he argues that the COMELEC en banc gravely abused its hence, in dismissing his motion for reconsideration without ruling on its merits, denying him the opportunity to be heard. 9 Rollo , p. 10.
The petition is devoid of merit.
The matter before the COMELEC en banc was a pre-proclamation case. Section 16 of Republic Act No. 7166, otherwise known as The Synchronized Elections and Electoral Reforms Law of 1991, cited by petitioner himself in his Reply, reads:
Sec. 16. Pre-proclamation Cases Involving Provincial, City and Municipal Offices. - Pre-proclamation cases involving provincial, city and municipal offices shall be allowed and shall be governed by Sections 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 hereof.
All pre-proclamation cases pending before the Commission shall be deemed terminated at the beginning of the term of the office involved and the rulings of the board of canvassers concerned shall be deemed affirmed, without prejudice to the filing of a regular election protest by the aggrieved party. However, proceedings may continue when on the basis of the evidence thus far presented, the Commission determines that the petition appears meritorious and accordingly issues an order for the proceeding to continue or when an appropriate order has been issued by the Supreme Court in a petition for certiorari.
Under said provision of law, pre-proclamation cases are generally terminated upon the beginning of the term of the office involved. The COMELEC has the discretion to except from the rule certain pending cases and order their continuation upon a finding that such cases are meritorious. In making exceptions, the COMELEC is not duty-bound to rule on the merits of each pending case, but is merely required to take a determination from the evidence presented.
Exercising the discretion conferred upon it by Section 16 of Republic Act No. 66, the COMELEC en banc promulgated its Omnibus Resolution on Pending Cases (Resolution No. 3049 ordering the continuation of those pending cases listed in the Annex to its Resolution. Said Omnibus Resolution provides that:
1. All cases which were filed by private parties without timely payment of the proper filing fee are hereby dismissed.
2. All cases which were filed beyond the reglementary period or not in form prescribed under appropriate provisions of the Omnibus Election code, Republic Acts No. 6646 and 7166 are hereby likewise dismissed.
3. All other pre-proclamation cases which do not fall within the class of cases specified under paragraphs (1) and (2) immediately Preceding shall be deemed terminated pursuant to Section 16, R.A. 7166. Hence, all the rulings of boards of canvassers concerned are deemed affirmed. Such boards of canvassers are directed to reconvene forthwith, continue their respective canvass and to proclaim the winning candidates accordingly, if the proceedings were suspended by virtue of pending pre-proclamation cases;
4. All petitions for disqualification, failure of elections or analogous cases, not being pre-proclamation controversies and, therefore, not governed by Sections 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and particularly, by the second paragraph of Sec. 6, Republic Act 7166, shall remain active cases, the proceedings to continue beyond June 30, 1998, until the issues therein are finally resolved by the Commission; and
5. All remaining pre-proclamation cases, which on the basis of the evidence thus far presented, appear meritorious and/or are subject or orders by the Supreme Court or this Commission in petitions for certiorari brought respectively to them shall likewise remain active cases, thereby requiring the proceedings therein to continue beyond 30 June 1998. until they are finally resolved 10 Quoted in the Comment of the Office of the Solicitor General, pp. 5-6. (Emphasis ours)
On the basis of its Omnibus Resolution, the COMELEC en banc issued the assailed Order dated September 30, 1998 dismissing petitioners motion for reconsideration.
The first thrust of petitioner's challenge is that the dismissal of his motion for reconsideration was made without a ruling on its merits. However, as stated above, the COMELEC is not duty-bound to rule on the merits of each pending case, but is merely required to make a determination from the evidence presented.
The second thrust of petitioners challenge is that the COMELEC gravely abused its statutory power to except pending pre-proclamation cases from the general rule requiring termination We note, however, that while petitioner attacks the order of dismissal, he appears to accept the validity of the Omnibus Resolution. In other words, Petitioner admits that the COMELEC en banc was correct in its determination as to which pending pre-proclamation cases were meritorious and shall be continued.
Petitioner's position is thus untenable. The assailed dismissal order was merely on the Omnibus Resolution the validity of which is not contested. Inasmuch as the petitioner's pre-proclamation case was not in the list annexed to the Omnibus Resolution, its dismissal as a matter of course was proper.
The case of Salih v. COMELEC cited by petitioner is not in point. In Salih the issue was whether the COMELEC en banc validly assumed jurisdiction over a case COMELEC (Second Division) had dismissed said case. The Court held that dismissal by the division was invalid because it had not resolved the pending motion for reconsideration, and hence, the assumption of jurisdiction by the COMELEC en banc was valid. 11 Supra , note 8 at 30.
In the instant case, the assumption of jurisdiction by the COMELEC en banc is not in issue. Petitioner is assailing the manner by which the COMELEC en banc exercised said jurisdiction in dismissing his motion for reconsideration. We find no grave abuse of discretion or jurisdiction by the COMELEC en banc in issuing the dismissal order because, as stated above, the dismissal was a matter of course.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING , the Court Resolved to DISMISS the petition.
Very truly yours,
LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Assistant Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
