ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 127328.January 30, 2001]
BUHISAN vs. COMELEC, et al.
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 30 2001.
G.R. No. 127328(Jane M. Buhisan vs. Commission on Elections, Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Lazi-Maria-San Juan (Branch 2) Lazi, Siquijor and Gordon I. Gorospe.)
This special civil action for certiorari seeks to annul the Order issued by COMELEC en banc on September 18, 1996, in COMELEC case denominated as UNDK 6-96, which reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED.
����������� The Clerk of the Commission is hereby directed to remand to the court a quo the record of the case and to the appellant the pleadings captioned "Appeal" together with the postal money orders intended for appeal bond and appeal fees.
SO ORDERED. 1 Rollo , p. 25.
Petitioner Jane Buhisan and private respondent Gordon Gorospe were candidates for the position of Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) Chairman of Barangay Poblacion, San Juan, Siquijor during the May 6, 1996 elections. Petitioner garnered thirty five (35) votes as against private respondent's thirty four (34) votes. On the same day, petitioner was proclaimed by the Board of Election Tellers as the duly elected SK Chairman. 2 Section 43 (c) of Local Government Code as amended by RA 8524 (approved on February 14, 1998) provides:
"(c ) The term of barangay officials and members of the sanngguniang kabataan shall be for five (5) years, which shall begin after the regular election of brangay officials on the second Monday of May 1997: Provided, That the sangguniang kabataan members who were elected in the May 1996 elections shall serve until the next regular election of barangay officials."
On May 13, 1996, private respondent filed before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Lazi, Siquijor, an election protest which seeks the annulment of the proclamation of petitioner and to declare private respondent the duly elected SK Chairman.
In its decision dated May 27, 1996 the MCTC nullified petitioner's proclamation and declared private respondent as the duly elected SK Chairman.
On June 17, 1996, petitioner filed an appeal with the COMELEC. The next day, the Electoral Contests Adjudication Department (ECAD) of COMELEC returned petitioner's appeal. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration.
On July 16, 1996, petitioner re-filed with the COMELEC her appellant's brief insisting that public respondent take cognizance of her appeal with prayer that it reverse the MCTC decision.
On July 18, 1996, public respondent informed petitioner that the decision of MCTC in the subject election protest may only be elevated to the Commission en banc via a petition for review and not by ordinary appeal. Public respondent also reminded petitioner that it will not accept a pleading unless it conforms to the formal requirements required under the COMELEC rules. While petitioner remitted to COMELEC the correct amount for the appeal bond, she did not comply with the other formal requirements enjoined by the COMELEC rules.
On September 18, 1996, the COMELEC en banc issued the assailed order and dismissed petitioner's appeal. The election tribunal held that the proper mode of assailing the lower court's decision in protest cases involving election of SK officials is through a petition for review, not by ordinary appeal.
Petitioner is precluded from filing a motion for reconsideration. Under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, a motion for reconsideration of its en banc ruling is prohibited except in a case involving an election offense. 3 Section 1 (d), Rule 13, 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure, as amended. Since the present controversy involves no election offense, reconsideration is not possible and petitioner has no appeal nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Accordingly, petitioner properly filed the instant petition for certiorari with this Court raising the following issues:
I
WHETHER OR NOT THE COMELEC EN BANC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL ON AMERE TECHNICALITY.
II
WHETHER OR NOT THE COMELEC EN BANC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT REFUSED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR RAISED BY THE PETITIONER THAT THE MCTC ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION IN TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE ELECTION PROTEST, CONDUCTED TRIAL AND FAVORABLY DECIDING THEREON, DESPITE THE FATAL DEFECT IN THE PROTEST WHICH FAILED TO ALLEGE THE JURISDICTIONAL FACT OF WHETHER THE PROTESTANT HAS PRESENTED A CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY.
III
WHETHER OR NOT THE COMELEC EN BANC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT DID NOT PASS UPON THE ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR ANENT THE MCTC'S REFUSAL TO CONSIDER THAT, DURING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BALLOTS BY THE BOARD OF ELECTION TELLERS, THE PROTESTANTS WATCHERS FAILED TO FILE ANY PROTEST OF ANY IRREGULARITY THEREOF, THEREBY RENDERING ANY QUESTION ON THE VALIDITY OF THE BALLOTS DEEMED WAIVED.
IV
WHETHER OR NOT THE COMELEC EN BANC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT DID NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE ERROR OF THE MCTC WHICH ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION IN ORDERING FOR THE REVISION OF THE BALLOTS DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF A NECESSITY THEREFOR AS THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE PROTEST DID NOT SO WARRANT THE SAME.
V
WHETHER OR NOT THE COMELEC EN BANC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT REFUSED TO RECTIFY THE ERROR OF THE MCTC WHICH ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION IN RULING THAT THE BOARD OF ELECTION TELLERS ERRONEOUSLY APPRECIATED THE SUBJECT BALLOTS, IN DECLARING THAT THE TWENTY-EIGHT (28) BALLOTS CAST IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONER ARE "MARKED" AND "NULL AND VOID," WHILE REFUSING TO ALSO NULLIFY THE BALLOTS IN FAVOR OF THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT OR TO APPLY THE SAME RULING TO THE CANDIDATES FOR SK COUNCILORS CONTAINED IN THE SUBJECT BALLOTS.
VI
WHETHER OR NOT THE COMELEC EN BANC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT FAILED TO REVERSE THE ERROR OF THE MCTC WHICH ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION IN ORDERING THE HEREIN PETITIONER TO PAY THE COSTS OF LITIGATION WITHOUT BASIS IN FACT AND IN LAW.
VII
WHETHER OR NOT THE COMELEC EN BANC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT REFUSED TO NULLIFY THE ERRONEOUS DECLARATION AND PROCLAMATION BY THE MCTC OF THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT AS THE DULY ELECTED SK CHAIRMAN.
VIII
WHETHER OR NOT THE COMELEC EN BANC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT REFUSED TO AWARD DAMAGES DUE TO THE PETITIONER.
hile petitioner raises principally the issue of grave abuse of discretion on the part of COMELEC for dismissing her appeal on mere technicality, the more fundamental issue here involves COMELEC's own jurisdiction and the appropriateness of the remedy sought by petitioner.
In this recourse, petitioner contends that public respondent gravely abused its discretion in dismissing her appeal on mere technicality.
Petitioner's contention is bereft of merit.
Section 49 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2824 dated February 6, 1996, governing the conduct of Sangguniang Kabataan elections provides:
Sec.49. Finality of Proclamation.-The proclamation of the winning candidate shall be final. However, the Metropolitan Trial Courts/Municipal Trial Courts/Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall have original jurisdiction over all election protest cases, whose decision shall be final. The Commission en banc in meritorious cases may entertain a petition for review of the decision of the MeTC/MTC/MCTC in accordance with the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. An appeal bond of P2,000.00 shall be required, which shall be refundable if the appeal is found meritorious.
Under the aforequoted provision, the decision of lower courts in protest cases involving election of SK officials may be elevated to the COMELEC through a petition for review, not an ordinary appeal.
Significantly, however, the COMELEC may entertain such petitions only on meritorious grounds. As explained by public respondent, by prescribing a specific mode to be adopted in assailing the lower court's decision, COMELEC is afforded the opportunity to examine the allegations on the face of the petition if there is a prima facie showing thereon that the lower court has committed an error of fact or law or gravely abused its discretion to warrant reversal or modification of the impugned decision. Note that before COMELEC gives due course to such petition, it must determine first the existence of compelling reasons therefor. In other words, this manner of appeal is discretionary on the part of the election tribunal. It is essential that a prior determination be made regarding the existence of meritorious reasons for the petition. Unlike in ordinary appeals, acceptance of the petition is not a matter of course. Moreover, the COMELEC Rules of Procedure provides that no pleading shall be accepted by the Commission unless it conforms to the formal requirements prescribed. 4 Rule 7, Section 5.Since petitioner did not abide by this rule, she has no valid justification to insist that public respondent take cognizance of her case. Here an appeal is obviously not the proper remedy allowed by the COMELEC Rules Accordingly, public respondent cannot be faulted for grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner's appeal
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED. Puno, J., is on official leave
Very truly yours,
LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
