ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 144947. October 10, 2000]

LUIGI B. CUERPO vs. COMELEC, et al.

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, -is a resolution of this Court dated OCT 10 2000.

G.R. No. 144947 (Luigi B. Cuerpo, Rosabelle F. Mendoza, Bernie F Abasques, Adelfa C. Dalumpines, Manuel B. Aliaga, Lorenzo V. Robinos, and Roger M Cordero vs. The Honorable Commission on Elections, Hon. Francisco G. Rabang, Jr., in his capacity as Presiding Judge of R TC, Branch 16, Kabacan, Cotabato, Bonifacio Tejada, Haydee D. Javier, Pacificador Peroy, Perla Solis, Antonio Caspillo, Jose Traspe, and Wilma Palomillo.)

Petitioners are the incumbent mayor and members of the sangguniang bayan, Mlang, Cotabato. An election protest was brought against them by respondents Bonifacio Tejada and several other losing candidates for sangguniang bayan before Branch 16, Regional Trial Court, Kabacan, Cotabato. Petitioners moved to dismiss the protest on the ground that respondents did not deposit the sufficient amount required by Rule 35, �10(b) of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure as a condition precedent for the revision of the ballots. Their motion was granted, but, on appeal, the COMELEC reversed. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied by the COMELEC. Hence this certiorari with prayer for writ of preliminary injunction.

After due deliberation, the Court RESOLVED to DISMISS the petition on the following grounds:

(a) The COMELEC correctly reversed the order of Branch 16, Regional Trial Court, Kabacan, Cotabato dismissing respondents' election protest. Rule 35, � 10(b) of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure provides:

In case revision of ballots is required, there shall be deposited, within ten days after being required by the Court, the sum of three hundred pesos (P300.00) for every ballot box for the compensation of revisors at the rate of P 100.00 each.

This provision presupposes an order issued by the court requiring the making of a deposit. Without such an order, the 10-day period for making a deposit cannot commence to run.

(b) The petition is defective because it does not contain a verified statement of the date of receipt by petitioners of the resolution denying their motion for reconsideration.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE