Case Digest (G.R. No. 248005)
Facts:
Francis N. Tolentino v. Senate Electoral Tribunal and Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 248005, May 11, 2021, Supreme Court En Banc, Lopez, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Francis N. Tolentino filed an election protest on June 20, 2016 against Senator Leila M. De Lima arising from the May 9, 2016 senatorial elections. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) had procured 92,509 Vote Counting Machines (VCMs) and associated equipment from Smartmatic-TIM under Automated Election System (AES) contracts styled as leases with an option to purchase (OTP), which contained Section 6.9 providing that goods still in COMELEC possession as of December 1, 2016 because of any election contest or audit "shall be considered sold to COMELEC" and the COMELEC may require the protestant to shoulder such costs.
By SET Resolution No. 16-01 (July 7, 2016), the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) directed COMELEC to safeguard election materials relevant to Tolentino’s protest. COMELEC sought clarification and the SET in Resolution No. 16-06 (Aug. 15, 2016) excluded certain hardware without election data and, invoking Section 6.9, required petitioner to shoulder retention costs for machines he asked to be preserved. The SET then, in Resolution No. 16-17 (Nov. 22, 2016), ordered COMELEC to retain specified machines at petitioner’s expense and required Tolentino to deposit P3,315,785.36 by November 29, 2016. Tolentino partially deposited P1,114,122.96 on December 1, 2016; after SET’s Resolution No. 16-37 (Mar. 2, 2017) directing payment of the balance or risk dismissal, he paid the remaining P2,201,662.40 on June 13, 2018.
Tolentino later filed a Motion for Return of Payments (Oct. 3, 2018) arguing that his payments were effectively purchase price but he never had ownership or access and therefore the payments failed their purpose; he also challenged Section 6.9 as illegal for vesting sole discretion to COMELEC. COMELEC replied that Tolentino’s payments represented retention costs and that upon lapse of the lease period the retained machines were deemed sold, so COMELEC validly paid Smartmatic-TIM. The SET asked COMELEC whether the VCMs were paid with government funds when it exercised its OTP (letter, Nov. 26, 2018); COMELEC maintained the payments were retention costs belonging to government.
In Resolution No. 16-141 (Feb. 21, 2019) the SET denied Tolentino’s Motion for Return, directed turnover of the deposited P3,315,785.36 to COMELEC, and explained that the SET lacked authority to rule on the validity of Section 6.9 (such matters belong to regular courts); it considered the deposited amount a retention cost payable under the AES contracts. Tolentino’s motion for re...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the SET commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it released petitioner’s cash deposit to the COMELEC?
- Does the SET have jurisdiction to determine the validity or constitutionality of Section 6.9 of the AES contracts between COMELEC and Smartmatic-TIM?
- Was the SET correct in treating petitioner’s deposits as retention costs and directing their turnover to COMELEC (such that n...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)