ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[G.R. No. 154041. September 16, 2003]

ESTRELLA vs. COMELEC

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEP 16 2003 .

G.R. No. 154041 (Romeo M. Estrella vs. The Commission on Elections and Rolando F. Salvador.)

Before this Court is a petition for certiorari filed on July 11, 2002, with an urgent prayer for preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining or status quo ante order, under Rule 64 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court which seeks to set aside the May 30, 2002 and July 9, 2002 Orders of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Second Division.

The antecedent facts of the case are as follows:

Romeo M. Estrella (petitioner) and Rolando F. Salvador (private respondent) were mayoralty candidates in Baliuag, Bulacan during the May 14, 2001 elections.

After the canvass of election returns, private respondent was proclaimed winner and he subsequently assumed office as mayor.

Petitioner thereafter filed an election protest dated May 25, 2001 with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan which was docketed as EPC No. 10-M-2001 and raffled to Branch 10 thereof presided by Judge Victoria Villalon-Pornillos.

During the pendency of the election protest, private respondent filed before the COMELEC a petition for inhibition of Judge Pornillos, docketed as SPR No. 26-2001, and a petition for certiorari and prohibition, docketed as for SPR No. 13-2002, to annul or set aside the judge's February 21, 2001 Order denying private respondent's motion to 1) declare petitioner as having failed to adduce evidence and 2) to prohibit the same judge from further conducting proceedings in the election protest.

By Decision [1] cralaw of April 10, 2002, the trial court ruled in favor of petitioner and disposed as follows:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:

1.ANNULLING and SETTING ASIDE the proclamation of protestee Rolando F. Salvador as Mayor of Baliuag, Bulacan; and

2.DECLARING protestant Romeo M. Estrella as the duly elected Mayor of Baliuag, Bulacan during the May 14, 2001 Elections, for having obtained, after due revision and appreciation of ballots, total votes of 15,564 as against Salvador's 14,125 votes or a plurality of ONE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED THIRTY-NINE (1,439) votes. (Underscoring in the original).

On even date, petitioner filed before the trial court a motion for execution pending appeal [2] cralaw while private respondent filed a notice of appeal.

The trial court thus issued an Order [3] cralaw requiring private respondent to comment not later than 8:30 a.m. of April 16, 2002 on petitioner's motion on which date and time it was set for hearing and oral arguments.

On April 15, 2002, private respondent filed before the COMELEC a very urgent 'motion for issuance of temporary restraining order to enjoin the trial court judge from acting on and granting the motion for execution pending appeal.

On April 16, 2002, the motion for execution pending appeal was heard before the trial court. Private respondent not having filed his comment, the motion was submitted for resolution and on even date, the trial court issued a Special Order [4] cralaw granting the motion for execution pending appeal and disposing as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court hereby grants the Protestant's Motion for Execution Pending Appeal, upon the posting of a bond in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P500,000.00) PESOS, and accordingly orders the immediate execution of the April 10, 2002 Decision of this Court.

Let a writ of execution be issued commanding the Sheriff of this Court to implement the April 10, 2002 Decision without delay. The Sheriff of this Court is hereby ordered to coordinate with the appropriate law enforcement agencies, including but not limited to, the Philippine National Police Provincial Office of Bulacan, which is deputized to assist the Sheriff of this Court, if necessary, in the enforcement of the writ of execution.

Also on April 16, 2002, the COMELEC issued two orders: one by the En Banc in SPC No. 26-200 1, and the other by the Second Division in SPC No. 18-2002. The En Banc Order [5] cralaw enjoined the trial judge from further proceeding with the election protest until further orders from the COMELEC. The Second Division on the other hand issued a Temporary Restraining Order [6] cralaw enjoining the trial judge from acting and/or granting the motion for execution pending appeal.

Still on April 16, 2002, petitioner, as required by the order of the trial court, posted a cash bond of P500,000.00 after which he took his oath [7] cralaw as mayor of Baliuag. Based on the supplemental report [8] cralaw of the sheriff, at around 4:25 p.m. of the same day, petitioner was officially installed into office.

At 4:55 p.m. also of April 16, 2002, the two orders of the COMELEC were served on the trial court.

On April 24, 2002, private respondent filed still another Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction [9] cralaw before the COMELEC, docketed as SPC No. 21-2002 (the third COMELEC case), with the following prayers:

1.A writ of mandatory preliminary injunction be issued commanding private respondent (petitioner) to step down as municipal mayor of Baliuag, Bulacan and installing petitioner as the lawful mayor of the same municipality as the status quo ante in this case and for private respondent to immediately vacate physical possession of the Office of the Mayor at the Municipal Hall of Baliuag, Bulacan; and, to prohibit private respondent from assuming the Office of Mayor in the Municipality of Baliuag, Province of Bulacan and prevent him from physically occupying the Office of the Mayor of the Municipality of Baliuag, Bulacan and to cease and desist from performing and, exercising the functions and prerogatives of the position of mayor.

2.After due hearing, issue a resolution annulling, or declaring as a nullity the assailed first and second Special Orders dated April 16, 2002 issued by Bulacan Regional Trial Court Judge Victoria Pornillos, granting private respondent Romeo M. Estrella's Motion for Execution Pending Appeal, for having been issued in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction, and for being a patent nullity as it was issued in defiance of two Orders issued by the Comelec en banc and its Second Division.

3.All other act or orders emanating and by virtue of the twin annulled orders must likewise be stricken down and annulled as illegal and to have no effect.

On May 30, 2002, the COMELEC Second Division issued the following Order [10] cralaw in the third COMELEC case:

Acting on the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with a Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order filed by petitioner Roland F. Salvador, through counsel on April 24, 2002, in the interest of justice and so as not to render moot and academic the issues raised in the petition, the Commission (Second Division), resolved to direct the parties to maintain the status quo ante, which is the condition prevailing before the issuance and the implementation of the questioned Order of the court a quo dated April 16, 2002 [granting petitioner's motion for execution pending appeal] and the writ of execution issued pursuant thereto on the same date in EPC No. 10-M-200[1] entitled "Romeo M. Estrella versus Rolando F. Salvador."

ACCORDINGLY, effective immediately, until further orders from the Commission, private respondent ROMEO M. ESTRELLA is hereby ordered to cease desist from assuming and performing duties functions of the office of Mayor of Baliuag, Bulacan. (Emphasis in the original; italics and underscoring supplied)

On June 4, 2002, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration [11] cralaw of the May 30, 2002 Order of the COMELEC Second Division in the third COMELEC case with a prayer that said motion be certified to the COMELEC En Banc and set for hearing. By Order [12] cralaw of July 9, 2002, the COMELEC Second Division denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.

Hence, the present petition filed on July 11, 2002 assailing the May 30, 2002 and July 9, 2002 Orders of the COMELEC Second Division.

In the meantime, on January 16, 2003, the COMELEC Second Division issued a Resolution in the third case disposing as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The Special Order dated 16 April 2002 , whichever version, Order No. 7 and Order No. 9 both dated 17 April 2002 issued by respondent presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 10, in the election protest case docketed as EPC No. 10-M-2001, are hereby ANNULLED for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The Writ of Execution dated 16 April 2002 issued by the OIC, branch clerk of court is hereby declared INVALID . Consequently, private respondent Romeo M. Estrella is hereby ENJOINED from assuming Office of Mayor of Baliuag, Bulacan and from exercising its functions and powers. [13] cralaw (Italics in the original; emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of this January 16, 2003 Resolution which is now pending before COMELEC En Banc.

Before this Court, petitioner alleges that:

A.

THE COMELEC HAS NO JURISDICTION TO ISSUE A STATUS QUO ANTE ORDER. THE CONSTITUTION, THE OMNIBUS ELECTION CODE, SPECIAL LAWS OR COMELEC RULES OF PROCEDURE DOES NOT EMPOWER THE COMELEC TO ISSUE A STATUS QUO ANTE ORDER.

B.

THE 30 MAY 2002 ORDER AND 9 JULY 2002 ORDER ARE NULL AND VOID. THEY WERE ISSUED 'WITHOUT HEARING, THUS, VIOLATED ESTRELLA'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS.

C.

THE COMELEC GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DIRECTING THE PARTIES TO "MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO ANTE WHICH IS THE CONDITION PREVAILING BEFORE THE ISSUANCE AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE QUESTIONED ORDER OF THE COURT A QUO DATED APRIL 16, 2002 AND THE WRIT OF EXECUTION ISSUED PURSUANT THERETO."

D.

THE COMELEC GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ISSUING THE STATUS QUO ANTE ORDER WITHOUT FACTUAL OR LEGAL BASIS.

E.

THE 30 MAY 2002 ORDER WAS ISSUED IN VIOLATION OF ESTRELLA'S RIGHT TO BE HEARD BY AN IMPARTIAL AND COLLEGIAL TRIBUNAL. [14] cralaw (Italics in the original)

The present petition seeks to set aside interlocutory orders of the Second Division of the COMELEC in the third case which has in the meantime resolved, by Resolution of January 16, 2003, said third case on the merits, a reconsideration of which Resolution is pending resolution before the COMELEC En Banc.

The third case in which the assailed interlocutory orders were issued having been decided on the merits by the COMELEC division, the present petition has become moot and academic. En passant, even assuming that the COMELEC Second Division had not decided the said third case on the merits, the present petition would just the same be dismissed in light of the following provision of Article IX-A of the 1987 Constitution:

Section 7. Each Commission shall decide by a majority of all its members any case or matter brought before it within sixty days from the date of its submission for decision or resolution. A case or matter is deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief of memorandum required by the rules of the commission or by the commission itself.Unless otherwise provided by the Constitution or by law, any decision, order or ruling of each commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof. (Citations omitted; italics in the original; emphasis supplied)

which was interpreted by this Court:

to mean final orders, rulings, and decisions of the COMELEC rendered in the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers. This decision must be a final decision or resolution of the Comelec en banc , not a division, certainly not an interlocutory order of a division. The Supreme Court has no power to review via certiorari , an interlocutory order or even a final resolution of the Division of the Commission on Elections . [15] cralaw (Italics in the original; emphasis and underscoring supplied)

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.

Very truly yours

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court

By:

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court



Endnotes:

[1] cralaw Rollo at 51-123.

[2] cralaw Id. at 124-131.

[3] cralaw Id. at 132.

[4] cralaw Id. at 133-138.

[5] cralaw Id. at 143-144.

[6] cralaw Id. at 146-147.

[7] cralaw Id. at 141.

[8] cralaw Id at 148.

[9] cralaw Id. at 150-178.

[10] cralaw Id. at 45-46.

[11] cralaw Id at 223-235.

[12] cralaw Id. at 48-50.

[13] cralaw COMELEC Records at 407-422.

[14] cralaw Rollo at 16-17.

[15] cralaw Ambil, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, 344 SCRA 358 (2000).


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com