ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 146258.January 16, 2001]

ANDUEZA vs. COMELEC, et al.

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 16 2001.

G.R. No. 146258(Eduardo M. Andueza vs. Commission on Elections and Luis Alim.)

Petitioner assails the resolution of the Commission on Elections En Banc which granted private respondent's motion for reconsideration thus reversing the previous resolution of the Commission's First Division directing the regional trial court to dismiss the election protest filed by private respondent, docketed as Election Protest No. 4734.

The present controversy stemmed from an election protest filed by private respondent before the Regional Trial Court of Masbate impugning the mayoralty election results in 11 barangays of Claveria.

In the course of the proceedings, petitioner filed a petition with the Commission on Elections, alleging that the regional trial court gravely abused its discretion in refusing to dismiss the subject election protest on the ground of private respondent's failure to file the required filing fee and in allowing private respondent to amend his protest beyond the ten-day reglementary period.

On June 13, 2000, the Commission's First Division granted the petition and directed the regional trial court to dismiss the subject election protest. On June 21, 2000, the regional trial court issued an order dismissing the subject protest. On June 26, 2000, private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration which the Commission En Banc granted, consequently setting aside the previous resolution. The trial court was then directed to continue with the proceedings in the subject protest.

Thus, the instant petition with petitioner asserting that the Commission gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it granted private respondent's motion for reconsideration. Petitioner's submission is to the effect that private respondent should have appealed the dismissal order of the regional trial court, instead of filing a motion to reconsider the order of COMELEC's First Division directing the regional trial court to dismiss the election protest.

The petition is unavailing.

As correctly applied, the pertinent legal provisions are Section 2 of Rule 19 and Section 13(c) of Rule 18 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure which provide:

Sec. 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 or implementation of the decision, resolution, order or ruling.

Section 13.Finality of Decisions or Resolution.

xxx

xxx������ xxx������ xxx

(c) Unless a motion for reconsideration is seasonably filed, a decision or resolution of a Division shall become final and executory after the lapse of five (5) days in special actions and special cases and after fifteen (15) days in all other actions or proceedings, following its promulgation.

In the case at bar, private respondent filed his motion for reconsideration on June 16, 2000 five days before the trial court issued its order dismissing his election protest on June 21, 2000. Moreover, as provided by the abovecited Rules, a decision or resolution of a decision shall become final and executory only after fifteen (15) days following its promulgation, making it clear that the trial court had no power to enforce the June 13, 2000 decision of the Comelec's First Division on June 21 or 8 days after its promulgation.

WHEREFORE, petition is dismissed.

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