Case Digest (G.R. No. 139853)
Facts:
Ferdinand Thomas M. Soller v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 139853, September 05, 2000, the Supreme Court En Banc, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Ferdinand Thomas M. Soller and private respondent Angel M. Saulong both ran for mayor of Bansud, Oriental Mindoro in the May 11, 1998 elections; on May 14, 1998 the municipal board of canvassers proclaimed Soller duly elected. On May 19, 1998 Saulong filed with the COMELEC a "petition for annulment of the proclamation/exclusion of election return," and on May 25, 1998 he filed an election protest against Soller with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro, docketed as EC-31-98.
On June 15, 1998 Soller filed his answer with a counter-protest and moved to dismiss Saulong's election protest on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, forum-shopping, and failure to state a cause of action. On July 3, 1998 the COMELEC dismissed Saulong's pre-proclamation petition. On October 1, 1998 the RTC denied Soller’s motion to dismiss; its denial of Soller’s motion for reconsideration was likewise adverse (the latter order dated February 1, 1999). Soller then filed with the COMELEC a petition for certiorari alleging that the RTC acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in refusing to dismiss the election protest.
Instead of referring the petition to one of its divisions, the COMELEC en banc took cognizance and, by resolution dated August 31, 1999, dismissed Soller’s petition. The COMELEC held that Saulong had paid the required filing fee, that the defect in verification was merely technical, and that there was no forum shopping. Because the COMELEC Rules bar motions for reconsideration of en banc rulings except in election-offense cases (Section 1(d), Rule 13), Soller had no further administrative remedy and filed the present special civil action for certiorari with this Court. On September 21, 1999 the Court required the parties to maintain the status quo ante as of September 17, 1999.
The record showed receipts and cashbook entries reflecting payments credited partly to different funds (Judiciary Development Fund, general fund, legal research fund, victim compensation), yielding a shortfall vis-à-vis the P300.00 filing fee required by Section 9, Rule 35 of the COMELEC Rules. The trial court therefore allegedly lacked jurisdiction. Soller al...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the COMELEC en banc have jurisdiction to entertain and decide petitioner's petition in the first instance?
- Did the COMELEC gravely abuse its discretion in refusing to order dismissal of the election protest for failure to pay the prescribed filing fee?
- Was the election protest defective for lack of proper verification so as to warrant dismissal?
- Did private respondent’s failure to disclose the pending pre-proclamation petition and thus to comply with the certificat...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)