G.R. No. 77663 - Presidential Commission on Good Government vs. Pena

Joenar Vargas Agravante (petitioner) and Joseph Amata Blance (private respondent) were candidates for Punong Barangay of Matacla, Goa, Camarines Sur, in the May 14, 2018 Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections (BSKE).
Petitioner initially won by a margin of three votes, garnering 789 votes against private respondent's 786 votes. Petitioner was proclaimed the duly elected Punong Barangay on May 15, 2018.

Private respondent filed an election protest on May 23, 2018, before the Municipal Trial Court of Goa, Camarines Sur.
Petitioner filed an Answer with Counterclaim and with Affirmative Defenses on May 30, 2018; private respondent filed an Answer to the Counterclaim/Counter-Protest on June 6, 2018.
A preliminary conference held on June 25, 2018, led to the constitution of a revision committee; parties agreed to simultaneously submit documentary evidence and memoranda after the revision.

The MTC granted the protest, setting aside petitioner’s proclamation, and declared private respondent as the duly elected Punong Barangay.
The court excluded from official count ballots not formally offered in evidence by either party, pursuant to Section 2, Rule 13 of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC (Rules of Procedure in Election Contests).
After excluding unoffered ballots, private respondent obtained 789 votes, and petitioner received 784 votes — reversal of the initial result.

Petitioner appealed but failed to timely file his appellate brief with required documentary proofs of service (affidavit of mailing, registry receipt, and written explanation for service by mail), resulting in the dismissal of his appeal on July 2, 2019, by the COMELEC First Division.

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the COMELEC En Banc, attaching supporting documents to justify his procedural lapse.
The COMELEC En Banc denied the motion on September 20, 2022, affirming the dismissal due to petitioner’s failure to justify noncompliance or raise new substantial matters.

Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assailing the foregoing orders and resolutions.
Petitioner urged issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or preliminary injunction to prevent implementation of adverse rulings.
Petitioner asserted substantial compliance with procedural requirements and claimed to be the true winner, invoking prior jurisprudence and alleging irregular exclusion of ballots.
Respondent COMELEC, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, argued adherence to mandatory procedural rules and denial of injunctive relief due to lack of requisites.

Whether the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing petitioner’s appeal for failure to perfect it in accordance with law.

Whether petitioner is entitled to the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO), status quo ante order, or preliminary injunction.