G.R. No. 164496-505 - Soriano, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections

Petitioners and private respondents were candidates for City Council in the First and Second Districts of Muntinlupa City during the May 10, 2004 elections.
After the elections, the Muntinlupa City Board of Canvassers proclaimed the private respondents as the duly elected councilors.
Petitioners individually filed election protest cases contesting the results in all 603 precincts (First District) and 521 precincts (Second District).
The election protest cases were docketed under EPC Nos. 2004-36 to 2004-45, with a clear demarcation between those related to the First and Second Districts.

On June 21, 2004, the COMELEC First Division issued an order consolidating the protest cases in both districts.
On June 26, 2004, the First Division issued two nearly identical orders:

Directed petitioners (protestants) Norberto Espeleta, Jeffrey Arevalo, Rodolfo Oliquino, Cecilio Marcelino, and Nathaniel Calalang to deposit P454,020 each for the revision of 603 protested precincts.

ii. Directed the corresponding protestees to deposit the same amount each for the revision of 603 counter-protested precincts.

Directed petitioners (protestants) Isidoro Soriano, Reynaldo Abas, Dante Almario, Alicia Landrito, and Alfredo Bunye IV to deposit P408,990 each for the revision of 521 protested precincts.

ii. Directed the respective protestees to deposit the same amount each for the revision of 521 counter-protested precincts.

The orders emphasized that failure to deposit within five days would result in dismissal of the respective protest or counter-protest.

On July 1, 2004, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the June 26 orders, which was later denied on July 30, 2004, by the COMELEC First Division.
Subsequently, on August 3, 2004, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition, with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order.
Petitioners argued that requiring each protestant to pay the full cash deposit individually (rather than jointly) constituted grave abuse of discretion (i.e., lack or excess of jurisdiction).

On May 31, 2005, the COMELEC First Division issued an Order dismissing the protest and counter-protest cases for non-payment of the required cash deposits.
The series of orders and subsequent denial of reconsideration raised issues concerning the proper administrative process and the authority of the COMELEC en banc.

Whether a writ of certiorari is the proper remedy to challenge the interlocutory orders of the COMELEC First Division.
Whether petitioners’ failure to first avail of the administrative remedy of filing a motion for reconsideration with the COMELEC en banc invalidates the petition.

Whether the issuance of the June 26, 2004, orders requiring individual cash deposits for each protestant (and protestee) constitutes grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Whether the decision to resolve the motion for reconsideration within the division, rather than elevating it to the COMELEC en banc, was proper under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure.