Case Digest (G.R. No. 193846)
Facts:
Maria Laarni L. Cayetano v. The Commission on Elections and Dante O. Tinga, G.R. No. 193846, April 12, 2011, the Supreme Court En Banc, Nachura, J., writing for the Court.In the May 10, 2010 automated national and local elections, Maria Laarni L. Cayetano (petitioner) and Dante O. Tinga (private respondent) ran for Mayor of Taguig City; petitioner was proclaimed winner on May 12, 2010 with 95,865 votes against private respondent’s 93,445 votes. On May 24, 2010 private respondent filed an election protest (EPC No. 2010-44) before the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) alleging fraud and irregularities and claiming to be the actual winner.
Petitioner filed an Answer with Counter-Protest and Counterclaim on June 7, 2010, raising, among others, the affirmative defense that private respondent’s protest was insufficient in form and content and praying for its dismissal. On July 1, 2010, the COMELEC conducted a preliminary conference and allowed private respondent to file a responsive pleading while indicating it would rule on petitioner’s affirmative defenses.
On August 23, 2010 the COMELEC Second Division issued the challenged Preliminary Conference Order finding both the protest and counter-protest “sufficient in form and substance,” thereby denying petitioner’s insufficiency defense; the Order directed large cash deposits by both parties (P1,609,500.00 by private respondent and P2,811,000.00 by petitioner) to defray recount and incidental expenses, directed the retrieval and transport of ballot boxes to ECAD, required the parties to provide vehicles and bear various travel and security expenses, authorized use/rental of PCOS machines and IT experts for ballot authentication, and set other procedural directions related to recount and photocopying. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration on August 31, 2010; the COMELEC Second Division denied it on September 7, 2010.
Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the Supreme Court, alleging that the COMELEC Second Division committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in refusing to dismiss the protest for insufficiency in form and content. Private respondent contested the petition on procedural grounds, invoking the rule that this Court generally may review only COMELEC en banc decisions (citing Repol v. COMELEC) and arguing that petitioner failed to demonstrate grave abuse. The Supreme Court considered prior decisions including Repol v. COMELEC, Soriano, Jr. v. COMELEC...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May the Supreme Court, by certiorari, review the COMELEC Second Division’s Orders denying petitioner’s affirmative defense of insufficiency in form and content, or does the constitutional and jurisprudential rule restricting review to COMELEC en banc decisions bar this petition?
- Did the COMELEC Second Division commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying petitioner’s affirmative defen...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)