ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 170255.
MANUEL R. VICENTE, JR. vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND LYDIA F. SONZA
En Banc
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court dated JAN. 31, 2006
G.R. No. 170255 (Manuel R. Vicente, Jr. vs. The Commission on Elections and Lydia F. Sonza )
In this petition for certiorari, petitioner Manuel R. Vicente, Jr., assails the October 17, 2005 Resolution [1] cralaw of the Second Division of the Commission on Elections affirming the October 1, 2002 Decision [2] cralaw of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Malabon City, Branch 56, annulling petitioner's proclamation as winning candidate for Barangay Kagawad.
Petitioner and respondent Lydia F. Sonza were both candidates for Barangay Kagawad of Barangay Catmon, Malabon City in the July 15, 2002 Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections. Petitioner emerged as the seventh winning candidate for Barangay Kagawad with a total of seven hundred seventy (770) votes, while respondent landed in the eighth place with seven hundred sixty-nine (769) votes, or a difference of only one (1) vote.
Unsatisfied with the results, respondent filed an election
protest with the MeTC of Malabon,
Branch 56, thereat docketed as Election Case No.
Upon revision, the MeTC counted votes which were contested by petitioner as marked ballots and therefore not appreciated by the board of election tellers in favor of any candidate. This resulted to the tilting of the votes in favor of respondent who obtained 771 votes while that of petitioner remained at 770 or a margin of only one (1) vote.
On
Dissatisfied, petitioner appealed to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) whereat his recourse was assigned to its Second Division. There, petitioner claimed that the MeTC committed grave abuse of discretion in counting two (2) contested votes which the board of election tellers found to be marked and therefore not appreciable for any candidate.
On
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby
DISMISSED for lack of merit. The
appealed decision of the Metropolitan
Trial Court of
Malabon City,
Branch 56, dated
Without filing a motion for reconsideration of the aforestated decision to the COMELEC en banc, petitioner went directly to this Court via the present recourse.
Rule 18, Section 13 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure requires that a timely motion for reconsideration of a COMELEC Division decision has to be filed with the COMELEC en banc before a special civil action for certiorari may be filed with this Court. Consequently, the filing of the instant petition was premature. Petitioner failed to exhaust adequate administrative remedies available before the COMELEC. [4] cralaw
As a general rule, any decision, order or ruling of the COMELEC in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari under Rules 64 and 65 of the Revised Rules of Court within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof. [5] cralaw However, these decisions or rulings refer to the decision or final order of the COMELEC en banc and not of any division thereof. A motion for reconsideration of a decision of the COMELEC Division has to be filed first, which is resolved by the COMELEC en banc, whose decision on the motion for reconsideration may then be the subject of a petition for certiorari with this Court. Thus, it has been held that the Constitution vests in the COMELEC in division, the jurisdiction to hear and decide all election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies, and in the COMELEC en banc to resolve motions for reconsideration from decisions or rulings of the former. [6] cralaw In other words, the "decision, order, or ruling of" the COMELEC which may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari refers to that of the COMELEC en banc. [7] cralaw As it is, the Court is without jurisdiction to entertain the instant petition.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.
The Court further Resolved to NOTE the
(a) Manifestation and Motion dated December1, 2005 filed by the Office of the Solicitor General, praying that it be relieved from filing a comment on the instant petition, considering that respondent Commission on Elections is impleaded herein as a mere nominal party, hence, its impugned disposition must be defended by private respondent Lydia F. Sonza, the party in whose favor the said disposition was rendered; and
(b) Comment on the petition dated
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Penned by Presiding Commissioner Mehol K. Sadain with Commissioner Florentino A. Tuason, Jr. concurring.
[2] cralaw Penned by Judge Edison P. Quintin.
[3] cralaw Rollo, pp. 41-44.
[4] cralaw Ruperto A. Ambil, Jr. vs. The Commission On Elections and Jose T. Ramirez, 344 SCRA 358 (2000).
[5] cralaw Sec. 7, Article IX, Constitution.
[6] cralaw Agpalo, Philippine Political Law, 2005 ed., pp 635-636.
[7] cralaw Kho vs. Comelec , 279 SCRA 463 (1997).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
