Case Digest (G.R. No. 192221)
Facts:
Casimira S. Dela Cruz v. Commission on Elections and John Lloyd M. Pacete, G.R. No. 192221, November 13, 2012, the Supreme Court En Banc, Villarama, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Casimira S. Dela Cruz filed her certificate of candidacy for Vice‑Mayor of Bugasong, Antique on November 28, 2009; Aurelio N. Dela Cruz likewise filed a certificate for the same position. On December 6, 2009 petitioner filed a petition to declare Aurelio a nuisance candidate because of the similarity of their surnames and Aurelio’s alleged lack of bona fide intention and capability. On January 29, 2010 the COMELEC First Division issued a resolution declaring Aurelio a nuisance candidate and cancelling his certificate of candidacy.
Despite that cancellation, Aurelio’s name remained on the Certified List of Candidates and the Official Sample Ballot. Petitioner moved the COMELEC to delete Aurelio’s name and, if deletion could not be accomplished before election day, to direct that votes cast for Aurelio be credited to petitioner pursuant to COMELEC Resolution No. 4116 (2001). Instead, on May 1, 2010 the COMELEC En Banc promulgated Resolution No. 8844, directing deletion of listed candidates from certified lists and expressly directing that “the votes of said candidates, if voted upon, [be] considered stray.” Aurelio’s name, nonetheless, appeared on the printed ballots for the May 10, 2010 automated elections.
On May 10, 2010 the automated elections proceeded. The Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBOC) of Bugasong, while canvassing on May 13, 2010, refused petitioner’s demand to credit Aurelio’s 532 votes to her, relying on Resolution No. 8844; the MBOC proclaimed private respondent John Lloyd M. Pacete as Vice‑Mayor, whose total exceeded petitioner’s by 39 votes. Petitioner filed an election protest in the Regional Trial Court of Antique on May 21, 2010 seeking tallying of Aurelio’s votes in her favor and annulment of Pacete’s proclamation.
Petitioner then filed this petition for certiorari with prayer for injunctive relief under Rule 65 in conjunction with Section 2, Rule 64 (filed May 31, 2010), challenging the validity of that portion of COMELEC Resolution No. 8844 that treated votes cast for disqualified/nuisance candidates appearing on the official ballots as stray, and asking the Court to order that Aurelio’s votes be counted for her under Resolution No. 4116 and to enjoin Pacete’s assumption of office. COMELEC and Pacete opposed, arguing the En Banc properly applied Sections 72 and 211(24) of the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881) and that automation changed the practical effect of prior rules including Resolution No. 4116.
...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the petition for certiorari under Section 2, Rule 64 properly available to challenge the COMELEC En Banc’s Resolution No. 8844 — i.e., did COMELEC commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction?
- Should votes cast for a nuisance candidate whose certificate of candidacy was cancelled but whose name nonetheless remained on the official ballots in the automated May 10, 2010 elections be considered stray under COMELEC Resolution No. 8844, or must those votes be counted and tallied in favor of the bona fide candidate under COMELEC Res...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)