Case Digest (G.R. No. 170300)
Facts:
Bartolome Balingit v. Commission on Elections and Pablo Yamat, G.R. No. 170300, February 09, 2007, the Supreme Court En Banc, Austria‑Martinez, J., writing for the Court.In the July 28, 2002 barangay elections for Nigui, Masantol, Pampanga, Pablo Yamat was initially declared punong barangay with 257 votes against Bartolome Balingit's 250. Balingit filed an election protest with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Macabebe‑Masantol, alleging fraud in counting and preparation of election returns. After a revision of ballots, the physical recount showed Balingit with 250 votes and Yamat with 255 votes.
By a Decision dated September 24, 2003 the MCTC declared Balingit duly elected, invalidating 86 ballots in Precincts 56‑A, 57‑A and 58‑A (which it held were written by one person) and crediting three votes for Balingit; the trial court ended up giving Balingit 249 votes and Yamat 172 votes as reflected in its tabulation. Yamat appealed to the COMELEC.
While the appeal was pending, Balingit obtained from the COMELEC Second Division an Order dated January 26, 2005 granting his Motion for Execution Pending Appeal, allowing him to assume the office. On April 11, 2005 the COMELEC Second Division, however, reversed the MCTC, physically examined the contested ballots, validated 80 of the 86 ballots previously disallowed by the trial court, and declared Yamat the winner (netting Yamat 252 votes to Balingit’s 249). Commissioner Mehol K. Sadain dissented as to six ballots (he would have invalidated them), which, if disallowed, would have given Balingit a three‑vote lead.
Balingit filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the COMELEC En Banc. By Resolution dated November 12, 2005 the Commission En Banc denied reconsideration, affirmed the Second Division’s rulings, proclaimed Yamat as punong barangay, ordered Balingit to vacate and cease performing the functions of the office, and declared the resolution immediately executory. Balingit then filed a Petition for Certiorari in the Supreme Court alleging grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC in (1) limiting its examination to certain ballots and not all contested ballots, (2) “sweepingly” validating eighty ballots contrary to the trial court’s findings as to single‑hand authorship, and (3) improperly justifying immediate execution by reference to the proximity of elections despite the passage of R.A. No. 9340 extending barangay terms.
The petition invoked the doctrine that grave abuse of discretion is tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction (Cantoria v. Commission on Elections) and challenged COMELEC’s factual appr...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the COMELEC commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it reviewed and validated contested ballots and reversed the MCTC’s declaration in favor of Balingit?
- Did the COMELEC commit grave abuse of discretion when it ordered immediate execution of its En Banc Resolution by citing the “proximity of the elections” despite the extension of barangay ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)