Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > February 2009 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 185898 : February 03, 2009] REYNOLAN T. SALES, PETITIONER, VERSUS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL (HRET) AND ROQUE R. ABLAN. JR., RESPONDENTS. :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the  Court En Banc dated February 3, 2009

"G.R. No. 185898 - REYNOLAN T. SALES, petitioner, versus HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL (HRET) AND ROQUE R. ABLAN. JR., respondents.

The Court Resolves to DISMISS the petition for the following reasons:

1. The petition is premature. The petitioner failed to file a motion for reconsideration with the HRET as required by Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, and no sufficient basis exists to bring the case within the recognized exceptions. Instead of the "plain, speedy and adequate remedy" that this Section requires, the petitioner Reynolan T. Sales can only claim that he, by sheer number of pages of the Decision and the required review of thousands of ballots, could not, and therefore was effectively not, given any practical and meaningful opportunity to file a motion for reconsideration of the questioned Decision, considering the period of only ten (10) days within which to do so under the HRET Rules; nor, in view of the urgency of the matter, did petitioner file any motion for reconsideration  of the said Decision.

2. The petition is legally inappropriate. The review that petitioner Sales seeks is beyond the scope of a Rule 65 petition for certiorari, as it is not grounded on action "without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to  lack or excess of jurisdiction." The petitioner essentially asks us to review the HRETs appreciation of contested ballots and election documents and its appreciation and evaluation of testimonial evidence. These involve questions of fact that, in the absence of clearly articulated allegations of grave abuse of discretion, are outside the mandate  of this Court to rule upon; they are questions of fact whose determination lies with the HRET as the constitutionally mandated tribunal tasked to be the "sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of their respective members.'" Only where grave abuse of discretion is clearly shown will the Court interfere with the HRETs judgment, The petitioner failed to show in his petition such grave abuse of discretion. (Ynares-Santiago, Austria-Martinez, Carpio-Morales, and Peralta,,JJ., no part)