ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 152632.July 23, 2002]
ABAO & TIPON vs. COMELEC & VALDEZ
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 23 JUL 2002.
G.R. No. 152632(Shim Abao and Roger Tipon, Petitioners, vs. Commission on Elections and Luzviminda Valdez, Respondents.)
For resolution is petitioners' motion for clarification of this Court's Resolution dated April 16, 2002 quoted as follows:
"G.R. No. 152632 (Shim Abao and Roger Tipon vs. Commission on Elections and Luzviminda Valdez) -The Court NOTED WITHOUT ACTION, the special civil action for certiorari and mandamus, filed by counsel for the petitioner, considering that this case was already dismissed in the resolution of 2 April 2002."
After the national and local elections on May 14, 2001, petitioners Shim Abao and Roger Tipon, as registered voters of Bacolod City, filed a petition with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), docketed as SPA No. 01-256 entitled "Shim Abao, Robert Ragor and Rogelio Tipon, Petitioners, vs. Luzviminda Valdez, Respondents," seeking to disqualify private respondent Luzviminda Valdez as mayoralty candidate for the same city.
On July 31, 2001, pending resolution of the petition of Abao and Tipon, Evelio Leonardia, one of the mayoralty candidates, filed with the COMELEC a petition for intervention praying for the annulment of the proclamation of Luzviminda Valdez and declaring him as the duly elected mayor of Bacolod City.
Without acting on Leonardia's petition for intervention, the COMELEC (First Division), on September 10, 2001, issued an Order in SPA No. 01-256 dismissing the petition for disqualification for insufficiency of evidence. Abao and Tipon filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied by the COMELEC En Banc in its Resolution dated February 1, 2002.
On March 4, 2002, Evelio Leonardia filed with this Court a manifestation and motion expressing his intention to lodge a petition for certiorari [1] cralaw assailing the COMELEC's Order dated September 10, 2001 and Resolution dated February 1, 2002 dismissing the petition of Abao and Tipon for disqualification of Valdez and S praying for an extension of fifteen (15) days within which to file his petition (G.R. No. 152225, entitled "Shim Abao and Roger Tipon, Petitioners, vs. COMELEC and Luzviminda Valdez, Respondents,").
For lack of personality to file a petition for certiorari, this Court, in a Resolution dated April 2, 2002 in G.R. No. 152225, denied Leonardia's manifestation and motion since "the main action (petition for disqualification) having ceased to exist, there is no pending proceeding whereon intervention may be based". [2] cralaw
On April 11, 2002, Abao and Tipon filed with this Court a petition for certiorari, docketed as G.R. No. 152632, questioning the COMELEC's Order dismissing their petition for the disqualification of Valdez. Since the title of this petition is also "Shim Abao and Roger Tipon, Petitioners, vs. COMELEC and Luzviminda Valdez, Respondents" (G.R. No. 152225), this Court, in a Resolution dated April 16, 2002, noted without action the said petition since it was already dismissed on April 2, 2002. It must be emphasized at this juncture that what this Court DENIED was Leonardia's manifestation and motion in G.R. No. 152225, not the petition of Abao and Tipon in G.R. No. 152632.
Thus, on May 27, 2002, petitioners filed the instant motion for clarification of this Court's Resolution dated April 16, 2002 dismissing the petition in G.R. No. 152632.
Meanwhile, on June 25, 2002, this Court dismissed Leonardia's petition in G.R. No. 152225.
Petitioners' motion for clarification is well taken.
The root of the confusion was Leonardia's filing Of his motion and manifestation, and later, his petition for certiorari erroneously titled "Shim Abao and Roger Tipon, Petitioners, vs. COMELEC and Luzviminda Valdez, Respondents." This petition, as earlier mentioned, was dismissed by this Courton June 25, 2002. This created the impression that the petition of Abao and Tipon in G.R. No. 152632 and Leonardia's petition in G.R. No. 152225 are the same.
At any rate, we also DISMISS the instant petition for certiorari in G.R. No. 152632 for failure of Abao and Tipon to attach to their petition the duplicate original or certified true copies of the assailed COMELEC Order dated September 10, 2001 and Resolution of February 1, 2002. [3] cralaw And even if the petition is not defective in form, we find, after an examination of their allegations in the petition, that the COMELEC, in issuing the questioned Order and Resolution, did not commit any grave abuse of discretion.
WHEREFORE, the motion is GRANTED. G.R. No. 152632 is likewise DISMISSED.Davide, Jr., C.J., is on leave.
Very truly yours,
LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Asst. Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
[2] cralaw Camacho vs. Court of Appeals, 179 SCRA 604 (1989), citing Matictic vs. Elbinias, et al. 148 SCRA 83 (1987).
[3] cralaw As required by Section 5, Rule 64 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
