Case Digest (G.R. No. 188308)
Facts:
Joselito R. Mendoza v. Commission on Elections and Roberto M. Pagdanganan, G.R. No. 188308, October 15, 2009, the Supreme Court En Banc, Brion, J., writing for the Court. The petitioner, Joselito R. Mendoza, was proclaimed Governor of Bulacan after the May 14, 2007 elections; the respondent Roberto M. Pagdanganan filed a timely election protest with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), docketed EPC No. 2007-44 and raffled to the COMELEC Second Division.The COMELEC conducted revision of ballots at its Intramuros office, the parties formally offered evidence, submitted memoranda, and the case was deemed submitted for resolution. On March 2, 2009 the Bulacan ballot boxes were physically transferred to the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) because the SET needed the same boxes in a separate senatorial contest (Aquilino Pimentel III v. Juan Miguel Zubiri). The petitioner moved to suspend further COMELEC proceedings in light of the transfer; the COMELEC Second Division denied the motion in Orders dated April 29, 2009 and May 26, 2009 and proceeded to "appreciate" the ballots at the SET premises.
Alarmed that proceedings were being conducted at the SET without his knowledge, the petitioner's counsel wrote SET Secretary Irene Guevarra (June 10, 2009); the SET Secretary replied (June 17, 2009) that the conduct of proceedings at the Tribunal premises was authorized by Acting SET Chairman Justice Antonio T. Carpio upon formal request of the Office of Commissioner Lucenito N. Tagle, citing COMELEC Resolution No. 2812 (Oct. 17, 1995) permitting coordination among tribunals. Thereafter the petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65, alleging denial of due process (failure of notice and participation) and grave abuse of discretion because COMELEC appreciated ballots not in its custody and outside its premises; a Status Quo Order was issued by this Court on July 14, 2009.
In their comments the private respondent argued the contested activity was internal COMELEC decision-making (confidential deliberations) rather than adversarial proceedings and that the petitioner had already participated fully in the revision stage; the COMELEC likewise maintained it had authority under its Rules (Sec. 4) and Resolution No. 28...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the COMELEC violate the petitioner's right to due process by conducting proceedings without giving due notice to the petitioner?
- Did the COMELEC gravely abuse its discretion in appreciating ballots that were no longer in its official custody and were located a...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)