Case Digest (G.R. No. 177429)
Facts:
This case involves Douglas R. Cagas (petitioner) and The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) along with Claude P. Bautista (respondent), related to an election protest filed after the May 10, 2010 gubernatorial elections in Davao del Sur. The May 2010 automated elections resulted in the proclamation of Cagas as Governor with 163,440 votes, while Bautista received 159,527 votes. Bautista filed an electoral protest on May 24, 2010, alleging fraud, anomalies, irregularities, vote-buying, and violations of election laws. The protest was raffled to the COMELEC First Division.
Cagas filed his answer on June 22, 2010, raising special affirmative defenses that Bautista failed to make a timely cash deposit and did not provide detailed specifications of the acts or omissions complained of, as required under COMELEC Resolution No. 8804. On August 13, 2010, the COMELEC First Division denied these defenses, ruling that Bautista had substantially complied with the requirements, as he paid the
...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 177429)
Facts:
- Parties and Election Background
- Douglas R. Cagas (petitioner) and Claude P. Bautista (respondent) ran for Governor of Davao del Sur in the May 10, 2010 automated national and local elections.
- Official canvassing completed on May 14, 2010, proclaimed Cagas the winner with 163,440 votes; Bautista had 159,527 votes.
- Protest Filing and COMELEC Proceedings
- Bautista filed an electoral protest on May 24, 2010 (EPC No. 2010-42), alleging fraud, anomalies, irregularities, vote buying, and election law violations.
- The case was raffled to the COMELEC First Division.
- Petitioner’s Affirmative Defenses and First Assailed Order
- Cagas raised special affirmative defenses, arguing Bautista failed to (a) make the required cash deposit on time, and (b) render a detailed specification of complained acts or omissions.
- On August 13, 2010, the COMELEC First Division denied petitioner’s affirmative defenses, holding:
- Bautista made substantial compliance with cash deposit requirement by paying on June 3, 2010.
- Bautista sufficiently specified the acts and omissions complained of, complying with COMELEC Resolution No. 8804.
- Motion for Reconsideration and Second Assailed Order
- Petitioner moved for reconsideration, contending that:
- The order failed to evaluate if the protest specified irregularities as required by Section 2, Rule 19 of COMELEC Resolution No. 8804.
- The protest lacked the "detailed specification" mandated by Section 7(g), Rule 6 of the same resolution, aimed at preventing indiscriminate fishing expeditions.
- Cited jurisprudence (PeAa v. HRET) to support dismissal.
- Bautista opposed, arguing:
- The orders were interlocutory and not subject to elevation to COMELEC en banc.
- The protest met procedural requirements to apprise the protestee of the issues.
- On October 7, 2010, the COMELEC First Division denied the motion for reconsideration, stating:
- The protest substantially complied with requirements, warranting the opening of ballot boxes.
- The order was interlocutory, not subject to elevation to the COMELEC en banc.
- Petitioner’s Recourse and Petition for Certiorari
- Dissatisfied, petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari directly before the Supreme Court, assailing the interlocutory orders denying his affirmative defenses and motion for reconsideration.
Issues:
- Whether a party aggrieved by an interlocutory order of a COMELEC Division may directly file a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court.
- Whether the COMELEC First Division gravely abused its discretion in denying petitioner’s special affirmative defenses and refusing to summarily dismiss the electoral protest for insufficiency in form and content.
- Whether the protest filed by Bautista met the procedural requirements for specification of frauds and irregularities under COMELEC Resolution No. 8804.
- Whether the case law on the reliability of the automated election system bars an election protest that challenges automated election results.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)