ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 164612.
BERNABE vs. COMELEC
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this
Court dated
G.R. No. 164612 (Florencio M. Bernabe, Jr. vs. Comelec and Pablo R. Olivarez.)
Petitioner Florencio M. Bernabe and private respondent Pablo R. Olivarez were mayoralty candidates for Para�aque City during the May 10, 2004 national and local elections.
On May 16, 2004, petitioner was proclaimed the duly-elected city mayor of Para�aque City with a margin of 6, 271 votes.
On May 26, 2004, private respondent filed an election protest against petitioner alleging that "by reason of the various anomalies, irregularities, electoral frauds and rampant violations of election laws and implementing rules, as well as cases of misappreciation of the ballots committed by the various boards of election inspectors during the May 10, 2004 elections in the City of Para�aque," petitioner won the elections. He protested the results of the voting in 664 precincts in Districts I and II of the city.
On June 7, 2004, petitioner filed his Answer with Counter-protest and Counterclaim.
On June 15, 2004, private respondent filed his Reply/Answer to the Counter- protest and Counterclaim.
On June 21, 2004, petitioner filed his Rejoinder.
On June 30, 2004, petitioner filed a Motion to Set Preliminary Hearing on Affirmative Defenses, stating that he had raised in his Answer with Counter-protest and Counterclaim an affirmative defense, thus:
10) In paragraph 7 of the election protest, Protestant imputes 'various anomalies, irregularities, electoral frauds and rampant violations of election laws and implementing rules, as well as cases of misappreciation of the ballots committed by the various boards of election inspectors.' While Protestant had enumerated the protested polling precincts, he had not indicated the particular electoral irregularities committed in that particular polling precinct, thereby making scattershot allegations. With no specific allegations of electoral irregularities committed in a particular polling precinct, the instant electoral protest is fatally defective, and warrants the dismissal of the protest....
Petitioner prayed that a preliminary hearing be held on his affirmative defense in accordance with Rule 16, Section 6 of the Rules of Court, which applies suppletorily to the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC).
After hearing, the COMELEC, Second Division, issued an Order dated July 27, 2004 ruling, among others, that the protest is sufficient in form and substance, and that petitioner's aforequoted affirmative defense is devoid of merit.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order dated July 27, 2004, which was denied by the COMELEC, Second Division, in its Order dated August 5, 2004.
Petitioner thereupon filed this Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) or a Writ of Preliminary Injunction. He prays that: (1) A TRO be issued directing the respondent COMELEC to cease and desist from implementing the assailed Orders of July 27, 2004 and August 5, 2004 and from further proceeding in the election protest until further orders from this Court; (2) that a decision be rendered declaring the aforesaid Orders of the COMELEC, Second Division, null and void for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion and directing the COMELEC to dismiss the election protest for being insufficient in form and substance.
We resolve to dismiss this petition.
The COMELEC, Second Division, ruled in its Order dated July 27, 2004 that the election protest is sufficient in form and substance, and that petitioner's affirmative defense is devoid of merit, thus:
... [C]ontrary to protestee's assertion, the protest is sufficient in form and substance. We find the allegations set forth in the protestant's initiatory pleading specific enough to warrant our consideration. Indeed, the anomalies complained of, and how they were committed[,] were clearly recited. In fact, it is ironic that the allegations and enumeration of counter-protested precincts in the answer of protestee were made in a similar presentation as those in the protest. If we are to deny the protest on the ground that protestee wants Us to, then his counter-protest should likewise be denied. However, this will not be the case inasmuch as We find protestee's aforequoted affirmative defense as being devoid of merit.
A reading of the protestant's allegations and of those of protestee in his counter-protest would reveal that the actions rest on, inter alia, allegations of ballot misappreciation, errors in counting and other irregularities attaching to the casting and counting of votes. According to the Supreme Court:
"Obviously, the simplest, the most expeditious and the best means to determine the truth or falsity of this allegation is to open the ballot box and examine its contents." (Astorga vs. Fernandez, 19 SCRA 331)
Under Article IX, part C, Section 2, paragraph 2 of the Constitution, the COMELEC shall exercise the following power and function: "Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city officials.."
The COMELEC has original jurisdiction over the election protest in question. The Court agrees with the ruling of the COMELEC that the election protest is sufficient in form and substance, and finds that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in making the said ruling.
Grave abuse of discretion implies capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to lack of jurisdiction, or arbitrary and despotic exercise of power because of passion or personal hostility. [1] cralaw It is absent here.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Batul v. Bayron, G.R. Nos. 157687 & 158959, February 26, 2004.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
