G.R. No. 216572 - Legaspi vs. Commission on Elections

The case arose from the 2013 local elections in Norzagaray, Bulacan, wherein multiple candidates vied for municipal positions.
Feliciano P. Legaspi, the petitioner, ran as the National Unity Party’s candidate for mayor, while respondents Alfredo Germar and Rogelio Santos, Jr.—along with Roberto C. Esquivel (whose issue became moot after losing the vice-mayoral race)—were fielded by the Liberal Party for mayor, councilor, and vice-mayor, respectively.

After the votes were tallied, Germar emerged as the highest vote-getter for mayor and Santos appeared to have secured a councilor slot; Esquivel lost in his vice-mayoral bid.
Immediately after the canvass, Legaspi filed a motion before the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) to suspend the proclamation of Germar and Santos, but the petition was unsuccessful.
Shortly thereafter, at 7:45 a.m. on May 14, 2013, the MBC proclaimed Germar and Santos as duly elected.

Petitioner Legaspi subsequently filed a Petition for Disqualification (SPA No. 13-323 (DC)) before the COMELEC, alleging rampant vote-buying by Germar, Santos, and Esquivel during the election period.
The petition was initially assigned to the COMELEC First Division where the vote split 1-1 between commissioners, with the third member absent to cast a tie-breaking vote.
To resolve the impasse, the COMELEC First Division constituted a Special First Division by substituting the absent commissioner with COMELEC Chairman Sixto S. Brillantes, Jr.

On October 3, 2013, the Special First Division rendered a decision by a 2-1 vote:

Disqualifying Germar and Santos from their respective positions;
Referring the criminal aspect (pertaining to vote-buying) to the COMELEC Law Department for preliminary investigation.

Germar, Santos, and Esquivel then filed a motion for reconsideration with the COMELEC en banc.
The COMELEC en banc, composed at the time of six (with only five actively voting), initially decided on the electoral aspect in a 3–2 vote, failing to secure the required majority after both the initial vote and a subsequent rehearing.
Invoking Section 6, Rule 18 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure, the COMELEC en banc dismissed the electoral aspect of the disqualification petition because a majority vote of “all its members” could not be reached despite a rehearing.

Legaspi contended that the dismissal constituted grave abuse of discretion.
He argued that the COMELEC en banc misapplied Section 6, Rule 18 by treating the petition as an “action originally commenced in the commission” rather than as a mere motion for reconsideration.
The petitioner maintained that the proper remedy should have been the denial of the motion for reconsideration with the division’s earlier favorable ruling being affirmed.

Whether the COMELEC en banc erred in dismissing the electoral aspect of SPA No. 13-323 (DC) due to its inability to reach the necessary majority vote.
Whether the petition for disqualification should be considered an “action originally commenced in the commission” or merely a “proceeding” (i.e., a motion for reconsideration) that does not invoke the dismissal mechanism under Section 6, Rule 18.

The dispute over whether the terms “action” and “proceeding” should be distinguished in the context of COMELEC’s rules.
Whether a motion for reconsideration, being part of the integrated process of deciding an election case, retains the character of the original action despite being lodged after the division’s ruling.

Whether the failure to secure a majority vote after the rehearing warranted dismissal of the whole disqualification petition or merely the motion for reconsideration.
The issue of how the COMELEC en banc’s decision aligns with the constitutional requirement that decisions be made “by a majority vote of all its [members]” as stated in Section 7, Article IX-A of the Constitution.