Case Digest (G.R. No. 216572)
Facts:
Legaspi v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 216572, April 19, 2016, Supreme Court En Banc, Velasco Jr., J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Feliciano Legaspi and private respondents Alfredo D. Germar and Rogelio P. Santos, Jr. were opposing candidates in the May 13, 2013 elections in Norzagaray, Bulacan. On May 14, 2013 Legaspi filed a Petition for Disqualification (SPA No. 13-353 (DC)) alleging massive vote-buying by private respondents and their agents, presenting sworn statements, police reports and other documentary evidence alleging recovered envelopes and sample ballots.
The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Special First Division, after hearing evidence, by a 2–1 vote on October 3, 2013, disqualified Germar and Santos and referred the criminal aspect for preliminary investigation. Private respondents moved for reconsideration to the COMELEC en banc; on July 10, 2014 the en banc issued a Resolution that, by a 3-2-1-1 tally, purportedly affirmed the Division’s October 3, 2013 Resolution (three commissioners voted to deny the motion, two dissented, one took no part, and one did not vote due to an expired ad interim appointment).
Because the July 10, 2014 action lacked a majority of all Commissioners, the en banc conducted a re-deliberation under Section 6, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. On January 28, 2015 the en banc issued an Order (3-2-2 vote) dismissing the administrative aspect of the Petition for Disqualification for failure to obtain the necessary majority votes after re-deliberation, effectively reversing the Division’s disqualification ruling.
Aggrieved, Legaspi filed a Rule 64 petition with the Supreme Court, which, in a September 1, 2015 Decision, dismissed his petition (the original Decision is not reproduced here). Legaspi then filed a motion for reconsideration before the Court. ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- When the COMELEC en banc fails to obtain the constitutionally required majority on a motion for reconsideration from a division ruling, should the motion be treated as an "incidental matter"—resulting in denial of the motion and affirmation of the division ruling—or as an "action or proceeding" originally commenced with the Commission—resulting in dismissal of the entire action (the Mendoza rule)?
- Does the Mendoza interpretation of Section 6, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, which treats failure to reach a majority on reconsideration as requiring dismissal of th...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)