G.R. No. 242690 - People vs. Fruelda y Anulao

Petitioner Mamerto T. Sevilla, Jr. and respondent Renato R. So were candidates for Punong Barangay of Barangay Sucat, Muntinlupa City in the October 25, 2010 Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections.
Sevilla was proclaimed the winner on October 26, 2010, with 7,354 votes, a margin of 628 votes over So’s 6,726 votes.

On November 4, 2010, So filed an election protest before the Muntinlupa City Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 80, alleging electoral fraud, anomalies, and irregularities in 20% of the protested precincts and prayed for a manual ballot revision.
The MeTC conducted a manual recount in the pilot precincts and dismissed So’s protest in an Order dated May 4, 2011.
So filed a motion for reconsideration on May 9, 2011, instead of an appeal, and failed to pay the appeal fee within the required period.
The MeTC denied the motion on May 17, 2011, stating the motion for reconsideration was a prohibited pleading under Section 1, Rule 6 of A.M. No. 07-04-15-SC.

So filed a certiorari petition before the Comelec on May 31, 2011, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the MeTC Judge for failure to provide clear and distinct presentation of how ballots were determined to be written by one or two persons.
The Comelec Second Division, in a Resolution dated May 14, 2012, granted So’s petition, finding infirmities and irregularities in the appreciation of ballots by the trial court and stating certiorari can be granted despite the availability of appeal where judicial authority is oppressively exercised.
The Comelec en banc in a split 3-3 vote, through a Resolution dated October 6, 2012, affirmed the Second Division’s ruling and directed the trial court to conduct another ballot revision expeditiously.

Commissioner Limas dissented (joined by two others), asserting the petition should be dismissed due to procedural errors, specifically the improper filing of a motion for reconsideration instead of an appeal, late filing of certiorari, and failure to observe procedural rules without valid justification.

Sevilla petitioned the SC to nullify the Comelec resolutions, alleging grave abuse of discretion for entertaining the petition despite loss of jurisdiction due to So’s procedural missteps, and contesting the correctness of the MeTC dismissal, which he asserts was proper.
Respondent So contended before the SC that the October 6, 2012 Comelec en banc Resolution lacked majority vote and was not a valid pronouncement; hence, petition should be dismissed to allow rehearing before a full Comelec.

Whether the Comelec en banc's Resolution dated October 6, 2012, has legal effect despite a 3-3 split vote and no majority decision.
Whether the Comelec properly exercised discretion by entertaining So’s certiorari petition despite procedural irregularities and the availability of appeal.
Whether the dismissal of So’s election protest by the MeTC was proper or tainted with grave abuse of discretion.
Whether the case should be remanded back to the Comelec for further action, including rehearing, under applicable rules.