[G.R. No. 143207. November 14, 2000]

MARCOS ED. BETACURA vs. 2ND DIVISION OF THE COMELEC, et al.

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated NOV 14 2000.

G.R. No. 143207 (Marcos Ed. Betacura vs. The Second Division of the Commission on Elections, The New Provincial Board of Canvassers of Lanao del Norte chaired by Atty. Nelia Aureus and Cesar R. Canoy.)

Petitioner Marcos Ed. Betacura and private respondent Cesar R. Canoy were among the candidates for the position of provincial board member in the First District of Lanao del Norte in the May 11, 1998 elections.

On May 20, 1998, the Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBC) of Lanao del Norte proclaimed the following winning candidates for the four (4) board member seats allocated for the first district, namely: Romana dela Cruz Neri, 20,906 votes; Luis Biliran, 20,247 votes; Fe Soria, 20,227 votes; and petitioner 16,133 votes. Private respondent who allegedly garnered 14,428 votes was ranked fifth.

On June 11, 1998, private respondent filed with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) a petition denominated as one for a "recanvass of votes", docketed as SPC No. 98-269. There, private respondent prayed for the annulment of petitioner's proclamation alleging that the same was based on a fraudulent canvass of votes.

After an answer was duly filed, the case was set for hearing. In the said preliminary conference, both the petitioner and private respondent appeared and manifested, through counsel, that they were willing to submit the case for decision on the basis of their respective pleadings and memoranda.

On March 21, 2000, the Second Division of the COMELEC rendered a resolution which dispositively reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The proclamation of respondent Marcos E. Betacura is hereby ANNULLED, having been based on a fraudulent canvass of votes. Respondent Betacura is hereby ORDERED to CEASE and DESIST from discharging the duties and functions of the office of Sangguniang Panlalawigan member.

A new Provincial Board of Canvasser for Lanao del Norte is hereby constituted with the following members: Atty. Nelia Aureus as Chairman, Atty. Zacarias Zaragosa as Vice-chairman, and Atty. Joslyn de Mesa as Third Member.

The new Provincial Board of Canvassers of Lanao del Norte is hereby DIRECTED to convene immediately upon the finality of this resolution; to recanvass the votes for petitioner Cesar Canoy and respondent Marcos Betacura and Fe Soria for the position of Sangguniang Panlalawigan member based on the SOVs from each of the municipalities in the First District of Lanao del North; and to proclaim the winners.

The Law Department is directed to investigate the commission of any election offense herein and to file criminal charges if warranted. Administrative charges against the members of the PBC shall be deemed instituted upon the conduct of the preliminary investigation.

The Clerk of the Commission (Second Division) is DIRECTED to forward the records of the case to the Law Department for this purpose.

SO ORDERED. 1 Rollo, pp. 48-49.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the said resolution but the motion was belatedly filed. On May 23, 2000, the Second Division of the COMELEC denied the motion "for being filed out of time." 2 Id ., at 64 .

Hence, the instant petition for certiorari with prayer for issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction raising the following issues for consideration, viz: (a) whether the Second Division of the COMELEC had jurisdiction to decide petitioner's motion for reconsideration; (b) whether the COMELEC has jurisdiction over SPC No. 98-269; and (c) whether the petitioner was deprived of his constitutional right to due process.

The petition lacks merit.

Section 3, Article IX-C of the Constitution provides:

Sec. 3. The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in two divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of procedure in order to expedite disposition of election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies. All such election cases shall be heard and decided in division, provided that motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the Commission en banc (Underscoring ours)

Section 5 (c), Rule 3 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure provides:

(c) Any motion to reconsider a decision, resolution, order or ruling of a Division shall be resolved by the Commission en banc except motions on interlocutory orders of the division which shall be resolved by the division which issued the order.

While said provisions provide that motions for reconsideration shall be decided by the Commission en banc, only motions filed within the five (5) day reglementary period prescribed by Section 2, Rule 19 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure 3 Section 2. Period for filing motions for reconsideration.- A motion to reconsider a decision, resolution, order or ruling of a Division shall be filed within five (5) days from the promulgation thereof Such motion, if not pro-forma, suspends the execution of implementation of the decision, resolution, order or ruling. (italics provided)can be referred to the Commission en banc. In Bulaong v. COMELEC, First Division, 4 220 SCRA 745 (1993).we held that:

Even if we are to consider the case at bar as falling within the jurisdiction of the COMELEC en banc by virtue of Section 3 of Rule 5(c) of the COMELEC Rules, it goes without saying that only motions for reconsideration filed within the five (5) day reglementary period as prescribed by Section 2 of Rule 19 of said Rules can be referred to the COMELEC en banc. Petitioner should have filed his motion for reconsideration on or before September 21, 1992 considering that he received the COMELEC's order dated September 9, 1992 on September 16, 1992. Petitioner may have been overly optimistic in expecting that his "urgent motion for one-day extension" would be granted forthwith by the First Division, which it did not. Hence, upon the lapse of five (5) days, the order of the COMELEC dated September 9, 1992 can no longer be questioned; much less can it be referred to the COMELEC en banc. 5 Id., at 750-751.

Here, petitioner received a copy of the May 23, 2000 resolution on April 5, 2000. He filed his motion for reconsideration by registered mail only on April 15, 2000. Verily, said motion was belatedly filed and the COMELEC Second Division acted within the bounds of its authority in denying the same without referring it to the Commission en banc.

On petitioner's contention that the COMELEC has no jurisdiction over SPC No. 98-269, it would suffice to state that the petition denominated as one for a "recanvass of votes" prayed for the annulment of the proclamation of the petitioner, hence, was within the jurisdiction of the COMELEC to resolve.

Petitioner's allegation that he was deprived of his right to due process is not tenable. Records bear out that he was represented by counsel and heard before the COMELEC Second Division. In fact, he even manifested through his counsel that he was willing to submit the case for decision on the basis of the pleadings and memorandum he submitted. In Bautista v. COMELEC, 6 298 SCRA 480 (1998).we ruled that all pre-proclamation controversies shall be heard summarily after due notice, and the proceedings, being summary, the COMELEC may rely on whatever pleading that may have been filed by the parties. Furthermore, in Acosta v. COMELEC, 7 293 SCRA 578(1998).we held that: "Due process dictates that before any decision can be validly rendered in a case, the following safeguards must be met: (a) the court or tribunal must be clothed with judicial authority to hear and determine the matter before it; (b) it must have jurisdiction over the person of the party or over the property subject of the controversy; (c) the parties thereto must have been given an opportunity to adduce evidence in their behalf and (d) such evidence must be considered by the tribunal in deciding the case." Applying the foregoing requirements to the instant case, it is clear that petitioner was accorded his day in court.

ACCORDINGLY, the instant petition for certiorari is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Mendoza, J., is abroad on leave.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court����


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com