ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 152225.April 2, 2002]
ABAO & TIPON vs. COMELEC & VALDEZ
EN BANC
Gentlemen :
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR 2 2002.
G.R. No. 152225(Shim Abao and Roger Tipon, petitioners, vs. Commission on Elections and Luzviminda Valdez, respondents.)
This case stemmed from a petition filed with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) docketed as SPA No. 01-256, entitled "Shim Abao, et al. vs. Luzviminda Valdez", seeking to disqualify respondent therein as mayoralty candidate of Bacolod City.
On July 31, 2001, Evelio R. Leonardia filed a petition for intervention praying that the COMELEC annul the proclamation of respondent Valdez and declare him (Leonardia) as the duly elected Mayor of the said City.
On September 10, 2001, the COMELEC, through its First Division, issued an Order dismissing the petition for disqualification.Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied by the COMELEC En Banc in its Resolution dated February 1, 2002.
The COMELEC did not take action on Leonardia's petition for intervention.Thus, on March 4, 2002, he filed with this Court a manifestation and motion expressing his intention to lodge a petition for certiorari [1] cralaw assailing the Order dated September 10, 2001 and Resolution dated February 1, 2002 of the COMELEC; and praying for an extension of fifteen (15) days to file his petition.
On March 7, 2002, Leonardia filed another manifestation and motion to admit payment of docket fees, attaching thereto the official receipts of such payment.
We deny the motions.
In Aurora B. Camacho vs. Court of Appeals, et al., [2] cralaw this Court held:
"There is no reason that intervention is only collateral or ancillary to the main action.Hence, it was previously ruled that the final dismissal of the principal action results in the dismissal of said ancillary action.The main action having ceased to exist, there is no pending proceeding whereon the Intervention may be based."
In the instant case, considering that the COMELEC dismissed the petition for disqualification, evidently, Leonardia's petition for intervention, being an ancillary action, is likewise dismissed.
WHEREFORE, Leonardia's twin motions are hereby DENIED for lack of merit.(Justice Artemio V. Panganiban dissented.Puno and Vitug, JJ., are abroad on official business)
Very truly yours,
MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Acting Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
[2] cralaw 179 SCRA 604 (1989), citing Barangay Matictic vs. Elbinias, et al., 148 SCRA 83 (1987).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
