ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 162054. April 27, 2004]
CADIZ vs. COMELEC
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR 27 2004 .
G.R. No. 162054 (Samson M. Cadiz vs. Commission on Elections and Elizabeth B. Gutierrez.)
On January 7, 2004, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) First Division issued its Resolution in EAC No. 24-2003 which reversed and set aside the Decision of the 2nd Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Poro-San Francisco-Tudela-Pilar.
Herein petitioner filed his motion for reconsideration on the aforementioned Resolution, but the COMELEC (First Division) issued an Order dated February 6, 2004, denying his motion, quoted as follows:
The Protestee-Appellee's "Motion For Reconsideration" filed thru mail on January 26, 2004, seeking reconsideration of the Resolution promulgated on January 7, 2004, is hereby DENIED for failure of the movant to pay the necessary motion fees under Sec. 7(f), Rule 40 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure.
SO ORDERED. 1
On February 27, 2004, the petitioner filed his petition for certiorari under Rule 64 with the Court. However, in its March 2, 2004 Resolution, the Court DISMISSED the petition for being premature, as no motion for reconsideration had been filed with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), and for lack of sufficient allegations to bring the case within the recognized exceptions.2
On April 19, 2004, the petitioner filed his motion for reconsideration on the aforementioned Resolution alleging that he had in fact filed a motion for reconsideration of the COMELEC Resolution dated January 7, 2004. The petitioner prayed that the Court reconsider its March 2, 2004 Resolution.
The Court resolves to DENY the motion for reconsideration.
While it may be true that the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration with the COMELEC, the same was denied for failure to pay the necessary legal fees.3 Hence, it is as if no motion for reconsideration had been filed, resulting in the decision of the COMELEC (First Division) attaining finality. The Court has no jurisdiction to review a decision of the COMELEC rendered by a division, much less, one which has already attained finality.
Before filing his petition with the Court, the petitioner should have pursued his motion for reconsideration of the COMELEC (First Division) Resolution dated January 7, 2004, and the Order dated February 6, 2004, to the COMELEC En Banc, pursuant to the 1987 Constitution, Art. IX-C, Section 34 and the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, Rule 3, Section 5 (c) which provides:
Sec. 5. Quorum; Votes Required. - (a) x x x
(b) xxx
(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.
The petitioner failed to observe the above provisions. Hence, his recourse to this Court must be denied.
IN VIEW THEREOF, the Court resolves to DENY with finality the motion for reconsideration.
Corona, J., on leave.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.)
LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
1 Annex "A," Rollo, p. 25.
2 Citing Philippine National Construction Corp. v. NLRC, 245 SCRA 668 (1995); Lasco v. United Nations Revolving Fund for Natural Resources Exploration, 241 SCRA 681 (1995); and, Villarama v. NLRC, 236 SCRA 280(1994).
3 COMELEC Rules of Procedure, Rule 40, Sec. 18. Non-payment of Prescribed Fees. - If the fees above prescribed are not paid, the Commission may refuse to take action thereon until they are paid and may dismiss the action or the proceeding.
4 1987 Constitution, Art. IX-C, 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.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
