Facts:

The case involves Lou A. Atienza as the petitioner and the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and Antonio G. Sia as the respondents. Antonio G. Sia was elected mayor of the Municipality of Madrilejos, Cebu, during the local elections held on January 18, 1988, winning by a plurality of 126 votes over Lou A. Atienza. Following Sia's proclamation by the Municipal Board of Canvassers, Atienza filed an election protest, which was docketed as Election Case No. EC-5, with the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC conducted a revision of the votes, resulting in Atienza obtaining 2,826 votes, which gave him a plurality of 12 votes over Sia. On April 12, 1989, the RTC ruled in favor of Atienza, declaring him the winner and ordering Sia to reimburse Atienza P300,856.19 for his election protest expenses. Sia appealed this decision to the COMELEC, raising issues regarding the vote count and the damages awarded. The case was assigned as EAC No. 20-89 to the COMELEC's Second Division. ...

Facts:

Election and Initial Protest

• Private respondent Antonio G. Sia was elected mayor of Madrilejos, Cebu during the 1988 local elections by obtaining a plurality of 126 votes over petitioner Lou A. Atienza.
• Following Sia’s proclamation by the Municipal Board of Canvassers, petitioner Atienza filed an election protest (Election Case No. EC-5) with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) questioning the results in several precincts.
• During the RTC revision of the vote count, petitioner’s total was recalculated to 2,826 votes, giving him a narrow plurality of 12 votes over Sia.

RTC Decision and Subsequent Appeal

• On April 12, 1989, the RTC rendered a decision declaring petitioner as the winner of the municipal elections.
• The RTC ordered private respondent to reimburse petitioner P300,856.19, representing election-related expenses incurred during the protest.
• Private respondent appealed the RTC decision before the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), raising two primary errors:
• The computation of votes received by the candidates.
• The alleged award of excessive damages to petitioner.

Proceedings Before COMELEC and Execution Issues

• The appeal was docketed as EAC No. 20-89 and assigned to the COMELEC Second Division.
• Although the RTC granted petitioner’s motion for execution pending appeal, respondent subsequently filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus questioning the execution order.
• COMELEC initially issued a preliminary injunction to halt the execution, but later, on April 7, 1992, an en banc Order set aside the injunction, effectively allowing petitioner to assume the mayoralty pending resolution of the appeal.

Dismissal of the Appeal and Clarification Proceedings

• After the synchronized elections on May 11, 1992, the presiding commissioner of the COMELEC Second Division dismissed petitioner’s appeal (Order dated July 18, 1992) for being moot and academic pursuant to Resolution No. 2494, which declared all cases arising from the January 18, 1988 elections terminated as of June 30, 1992.
• Petitioner sought clarification regarding whether the dismissal referred to the RTC protest case or solely to the appeal before COMELEC.
• The COMELEC Second Division clarified in its Order dated September 16, 1992 that only the appeal was dismissed for mootness, as the original election protest (over which the Commission has original jurisdiction) was not affected by the dismissal.
• Petitioner disagreed, contending that the dismissal of the appeal should have left the RTC judgment intact and enforceable.

Contentions on Damages and the Commission’s Final Resolution

• Petitioner argued that dismissal of the appeal meant no appeal had ever been taken, thereby leaving the RTC decision—including the award of P300,856.19 for election expenses—valid and enforceable.
• The central controversy emerged as to whether the COMELEC abused its discretion when it, on January 28, 1993, reversed the monetary award while holding that the dismissal of the appeal did not revive the RTC decision.
• The dispute turned on the statutory provisions for damages under the Omnibus Election Code, relevant Civil Code provisions, and the legislative intent regarding actual or compensatory damages in election contests.

Issue:

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the RTC’s monetary award awarding petitioner P300,856.19 as election expenses.

• Specifically, whether the reversal was proper given that the appeal was dismissed for being moot and academic due to the expiration of the contested office’s term.

• Whether the dismissal of the appeal for being moot and academic should have the effect of leaving the RTC decision intact, particularly the award of election expenses.

Whether the awarding of compensatory or actual damages in an election protest is justified absent evidence of a wrongful or negligent act as required by statutory and civil law.

• Examination of the statutory framework under the Omnibus Election Code versus the earlier election laws that provided for bonds or cash deposits as compensatory damages.
• The impact of legislative intent to limit damages awards solely to those specified by law.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)