Case Digest (G.R. No. 206004)
Facts:
Joseph B. Timbol v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 206004, February 24, 2015, Supreme Court En Banc, Leonen, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Joseph B. Timbol filed a Certificate of Candidacy on October 5, 2012 for Member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod, Second District, Caloocan City; respondent is the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). The petition to the Court was filed under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, seeking certiorari and a preliminary mandatory injunction against COMELEC issuances that declared him a nuisance candidate and removed his name from the certified list of candidates.
On January 11, 2013 COMELEC issued Resolution No. 9610 listing Timbol among alleged nuisance candidates and ordering removal from the certified list. Timbol received a subpoena dated January 15, 2013 to appear on January 17, 2013 before COMELEC Election Officer Dinah A. Valencia for a clarificatory hearing. Timbol and his counsel attended and argued he was not a nuisance candidate — citing, among other things, his purported eighth-place showing in the 2010 elections and available resources to sustain a campaign. Election Officer Valencia prepared a Memorandum dated January 17, 2013 recommending that his COC be given due course.
Despite that recommendation, Timbol’s name remained in the list of nuisance candidates posted on COMELEC’s website. With automated ballot printing scheduled to begin February 4, 2013, Timbol filed a petition on February 2, 2013 seeking inclusion in the certified list and printing on the ballots. In a Minute Resolution dated February 5, 2013 COMELEC denied that petition as moot because ballot printing had already commenced. Timbol filed a Petition for Certiorari with this Court on March 15, 2013, alleging grave abuse of discretion and denial of due process by being declared a nuisance candidate before having an opportunity to be heard.
This Court required the Office of the Solicitor General to comment on April 16, 2013. COMELEC responded that the petition was moot and, alternatively, that Timbol had been afforded an opportunity to be heard at the clarificatory hearing and that denial of his petition was justified by the commencement of ballot printing. ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is this case now moot and academic?
- Did COMELEC gravely abuse its discretion in denying petitioner Timbol’s petition for inclusion in the certified list of candidates by declaring him a nuisance candidate without affording an effective opportu...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)