July 2007 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > July 2007 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 172949 : July 03, 2007] LUCIO B. UERA, PETITIONER, VERSUS THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ROMEO V. BORJA, RESPONDENTS.<BR><BR>[G.R. NO. 173204]<BR><BR> ROMEO V. BORJA, PETITIONER, VERSUS HONORABLE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND LUCIO B. UERA, RESPONDENTS. :
[G.R. No. 172949 : July 03, 2007]
LUCIO B. UERA, PETITIONER, VERSUS THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ROMEO V. BORJA, RESPONDENTS.<BR><BR>[G.R. NO. 173204]<BR><BR> ROMEO V. BORJA, PETITIONER, VERSUS HONORABLE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND LUCIO B. UERA, RESPONDENTS.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated July 3, 2007
G.R. No. 172949 - LUCIO B. UERA, petitioner, versus THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and ROMEO V. BORJA, respondents.
G.R. No. 173204 - ROMEO V. BORJA, petitioner, versus HONORABLE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and LUCIO B. UERA, respondents.
Before us are two consolidated petitions under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court for certiorari, with prayers for a temporary restraining order and/or a writ of preliminary injunction, assailing all or portions of the June 9, 2006 Resolution[1] of public respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in SPR Case No. 62-2004.
Lucio B. Uera and Romeo V. Borja were candidates for mayor of the Municipality of Pantabangan, Nueva Ecija in the May 10, 2004 national and local elections. Uera was proclaimed as the duly elected mayor with a total of 4,353 votes as against Borja's total of 4,334 votes. Dissatisfied with the result, Borja filed an election protest[2] on May 21, 2004 with the Regional Trial Court of San Jose City, Nueva Ecija, Branch 39. Borja assailed the irregularities in the conduct of the elections in Pantabangan, alleging massive fraud. He protested the election results from 33 precincts.
The trial court promulgated its Decision dated November 5, 2004 proclaiming Borja the duly elected mayor and set aside the proclamation of Uera. Borja filed a motion for execution pending appeal, while Uera filed a notice of appeal. A day after, Uera filed a petition for certiorari with the COMELEC's Second Division. But on the same day, November 18, 2004, the trial court issued an order granting the motion for execution pending appeal so that the COMELEC's Second Division issued a temporary restraining order directing the lower court from acting upon any incident in the election protest. The COMELEC's Second Division later clarified in an Order dated December 23, 2004 that the temporary restraining order issued on November 18, 2004 was valid only for 20 days and thus had expired on December 8, 2004, thereby entitling Borja to assume the mayoralty post.[3] Uera questioned this order in a motion for reconsideration filed on February 9, 2005. The COMELEC's Second Division granted the petition and annulled and set aside the decision of the trial court and ordered complete revision in the remaining 75% of the protested precincts. Uera went to the COMELEC en Banc. From the decision of the COMELEC en Banc, upon motion for reconsideration by Uera, the resolution of the COMELEC's Second Division was reversed and set aside.
Uera in G.R. No. 172949 comes to this Court alleging that the COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion when it promulgated its Resolution dated June 9, 2006 without a majority of four members; when it ruled that the error of judgment of the trial court should have been raised in an ordinary appeal; and when it concluded that Uera committed forum shopping.
On the other hand, in G.R. No. 173204, Borja alleges that the COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion in granting respondent a ten-day period to re-file his appeal, and when it entertained the appeal re-filed by Uera.
In view of the recently held May 14, 2007 national and local elections, whereby a new set of municipal officers has been elected, we are constrained to declare the issues abovecited already moot and academic.[4]
WHEREFORE, the petitions are hereby DISMISSED.
Gutierrez, J., on leave
G.R. No. 172949 - LUCIO B. UERA, petitioner, versus THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and ROMEO V. BORJA, respondents.
G.R. No. 173204 - ROMEO V. BORJA, petitioner, versus HONORABLE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and LUCIO B. UERA, respondents.
Before us are two consolidated petitions under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court for certiorari, with prayers for a temporary restraining order and/or a writ of preliminary injunction, assailing all or portions of the June 9, 2006 Resolution[1] of public respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in SPR Case No. 62-2004.
Lucio B. Uera and Romeo V. Borja were candidates for mayor of the Municipality of Pantabangan, Nueva Ecija in the May 10, 2004 national and local elections. Uera was proclaimed as the duly elected mayor with a total of 4,353 votes as against Borja's total of 4,334 votes. Dissatisfied with the result, Borja filed an election protest[2] on May 21, 2004 with the Regional Trial Court of San Jose City, Nueva Ecija, Branch 39. Borja assailed the irregularities in the conduct of the elections in Pantabangan, alleging massive fraud. He protested the election results from 33 precincts.
The trial court promulgated its Decision dated November 5, 2004 proclaiming Borja the duly elected mayor and set aside the proclamation of Uera. Borja filed a motion for execution pending appeal, while Uera filed a notice of appeal. A day after, Uera filed a petition for certiorari with the COMELEC's Second Division. But on the same day, November 18, 2004, the trial court issued an order granting the motion for execution pending appeal so that the COMELEC's Second Division issued a temporary restraining order directing the lower court from acting upon any incident in the election protest. The COMELEC's Second Division later clarified in an Order dated December 23, 2004 that the temporary restraining order issued on November 18, 2004 was valid only for 20 days and thus had expired on December 8, 2004, thereby entitling Borja to assume the mayoralty post.[3] Uera questioned this order in a motion for reconsideration filed on February 9, 2005. The COMELEC's Second Division granted the petition and annulled and set aside the decision of the trial court and ordered complete revision in the remaining 75% of the protested precincts. Uera went to the COMELEC en Banc. From the decision of the COMELEC en Banc, upon motion for reconsideration by Uera, the resolution of the COMELEC's Second Division was reversed and set aside.
Uera in G.R. No. 172949 comes to this Court alleging that the COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion when it promulgated its Resolution dated June 9, 2006 without a majority of four members; when it ruled that the error of judgment of the trial court should have been raised in an ordinary appeal; and when it concluded that Uera committed forum shopping.
On the other hand, in G.R. No. 173204, Borja alleges that the COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion in granting respondent a ten-day period to re-file his appeal, and when it entertained the appeal re-filed by Uera.
In view of the recently held May 14, 2007 national and local elections, whereby a new set of municipal officers has been elected, we are constrained to declare the issues abovecited already moot and academic.[4]
WHEREFORE, the petitions are hereby DISMISSED.
Gutierrez, J., on leave
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo (G.R. No. 172949), pp. 41-48.
[2] Id. at 49-54.
[3] Id. at 43-44
[4] See Romeo D. Lonzanida v. COMELEC (First Division) and Juan L. Alvez, G.R. No. 160029, September 7, 2004 (Unsigned Resolution) and Besben Beb Y. Maquiso v. COMELEC, et al., G.R. No. 159942, August 10, 2004 (Unsigned Resolution).
