ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 171232. April 25. 2006]
ALFREDO C. CORONA versus COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND SONIA T. AQUINO
En Banc
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR. 25, 2006
G.R. No. 171232 (Alfredo C. Corona versus Commission on Elections and Sonia T. Aquino )
Petitioner Alfredo C. Corona prays that the orders dated December 20, 2005, [1] cralaw January 16, 2006 [2] cralaw and February 7, 2006 [3] cralaw and the writ of execution dated January 17, 2006 [4] cralaw issued by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in EPC No. 2004-04 [5] cralaw be declared null and void. He prays for the issuance of a temporary restraining order enjoining the COMELEC from enforcing the assailed orders and writ.
This petition stemmed from the election protest filed by private respondent Sonia T. Aquino against petitioner. The case was assigned to the Second Division of the COMELEC with only Commissioners Mehol K. Sadain and Florentino A. Tuason, Jr. as members. Pursuant to Section 6, Rule 3 [6] cralaw of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, Chairman Benjamin S. Abalos issued an Order dated December 20, 2005 appointing Commissioner Rufino S.B. Javier as third member only for the case. [7] cralaw On December 22, 2005, the Second Division promulgated a Resolution in favor of private respondent, with Commissioner Tuason dissenting.
Petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the December 22, 2005 Resolution. This is still pending resolution by the COMELEC. In the meantime, respondent moved for the immediate execution of the aforesaid resolution. On January 16, 2006, the COMELEC Second Division issued an order granting the writ of execution. On January 17, 2006, the writ of execution was issued.
Petitioner sought the reconsideration of the January 16, 2006 Order with prayer for a temporary restraining order (TRO). The COMELEC issued a TRO. On February 1, 2006, the COMELEC en banc voted on the motion to set aside the January 16, 2006 Order. [8] cralaw However, the vote was split to 2-2-2 as follows: Chairman Abalos and Commissioner Tuason voted to set aside the writ, Commissioners Sadain and Javier voted to uphold the writ, while Commissioners Borra and Brawner inhibited themselves. On February 7, 2006, the COMELEC en banc resolved to maintain the writ of execution. [9] cralaw
Before us, petitioner questions the orders dated December 20, 2005, January 16, 2006 and February 7, 2006 and the writ of execution dated January 17, 2006 issued by the COMELEC.
Petitioner assails the December 20, 2005 Order, arguing that the case should have been elevated to the COMELEC en banc in accordance with Section 5(b), Rule 3 [10] cralaw of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. He avers that it is clear from the December 22, 2005 Resolution that the two original members differed in their votes; hence, the appointment of Commissioner Javier was not in accord with the rules.
Petitioner also assails the January 16, 2006 Order, contending that under Section 2, Rule 19 [11] cralaw of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, his pending motion for reconsideration suspends the execution or implementation of the December 22, 2005 Resolution.
Petitioner likewise assails the February 7, 2006 Order, questioning Chairman Abalos's authority to sign the same for the Commission. He also alleges that at the time the order was issued, Commissioners Javier and Sadain have already retired. Since Commissioners Borra and Brawner have previously inhibited themselves, then only Chairman Abalos and Commissioner Tuason, who earlier voted to set aside the writ, could vote on the motion. Petitioner argues that new members should have been appointed first before the motion could be reheard and decided.
We are not convinced.
First. Section 6, Rule 3 [12] cralaw of the COMELEC Rules of Procedures clearly sanctions the appointment made by Chairman Abalos. Such provision provides that when a division has only two regular members, the Chairman may appoint a substitute Commissioner, or the Chairman himself may sit as substitute or third member, and in that event he shall preside. We are of the opinion that Chairman Abalos properly designated Commissioner Javier as a third substitute member for the speedy disposition of the case.
Second. We hold that execution pending an appeal or a motion for reconsideration can be allowed. Though there are no specific provisions in the COMELEC Rules of Procedure on this, Rule 41 thereof provides for the suppletory application of the Rules of Court, which allows execution pending an appeal or a motion for reconsideration.
In Batul v. Bayron, [13] cralaw this Court allowed the execution pending a motion for reconsideration in view of the short remaining period of the term of office and to obviate a hollow victory for the duly elected candidate as determined by either the courts or the COMELEC. There is no reason why we should not allow the same in this case considering that the 2007 end of the term of office is fast approaching.
Third. Under Section 4, Rule 1 [14] cralaw of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, the COMELEC may suspend its own rules for the speedy disposition of the case. Thus, although Section 6, Rule 18 [15] cralaw of the COMELEC Rules provides that when the Commission en banc is equally divided in opinion the case shall be reheard, it may be dispensed with in this case. Since two Commissioners have retired when the February 7, 2006 Order was issued and it would take sometime for the appointment of new Commissioners, the COMELEC may no longer set the case for rehearing. Thus, it can consider its initial voting as its resolution of the motion. Since the Commission en banc was equally divided in opinion, the motion for reconsideration should be deemed lost; thus, the January 16, 2006 and February 7, 2006 orders should stand affirmed.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED and the prayer for a temporary restraining order is DENIED.
Puno, J., on leave. Corona, J, no part. Chico-Nazario, J., on official leave.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Rollo , p. 56.
[2] cralaw Id. at 58-61.
[3] cralaw Id. at 67-68.
[4] cralaw Id. at 65-66.
[5] cralaw Also referred to as EPC No. 2004-4 in some parts of the record.
[6] cralaw SEC. 6. Change in Composition; Substitution . - The composition of a Division may be changed by the Chairman of the Commission whenever necessary, Provided, that no change shall be made more than once every three (3) months; Provided, moreover, that notice thereof in writing shall be furnished the parties in cases pending before the Division concerned.
Whenever there is a vacancy in a Division because a member inhibits himself, is absent, or is disqualified from sitting in a case, or when a division has only two (2) regular members, the Chairman may appoint a substitute Commissioner, or the Chairman himself may sit as substitute or third member, and in that event he shall preside.
[7] cralaw Rollo , p. 56. Commissioner Javier's appointment came after Commissioners Borra and Brawner inhibited from the case.
[8] cralaw Rollo , pp. 809-811.
[9] cralaw Id. at 67-68.
[10] cralaw SEC. 5. Quorum; Votes Required . - ...
(b) When sitting in Divisions, two (2) Members of a Division shall constitute a quorum to transact business. The concurrence of at least two (2) Members of a Division shall be necessary to reach a decision, resolution, order or ruling. If this required number is not obtained, the case shall be automatically elevated to the Commission en banc for decision or resolution.
x x x x
[11] cralaw 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.
[12] cralaw Supra, note 6.
[13] cralaw G.R. Nos. 157687 & 158959, February 26, 2004, 424 SCRA 26, 38-40.
[14] cralaw SEC. 4. Suspension of the Rules . - In the interest of justice and in order to obtain speedy disposition of all matters pending before the Commission, these rules or any portion thereof may be suspended by the Commission.
[15] cralaw SEC. 6. Procedure if Opinion is Equally Divided . - When the Commission en banc is equally divided in opinion, or the necessary majority cannot be had, the case shall be reheard, and if on rehearing no decision is reached, the action or proceeding shall be dismissed if originally commenced in the Commission; in appealed cases, the judgment or order appealed from shall stand affirmed; and in all incidental matters, the petition or motion shall be denied.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
