G.R. No. 216572 - Legaspi vs. Commission on Elections

Case Summary (G.R. No. 216572)

Factual Background

The case arose from the May 13, 2013 local elections in Norzagaray, Bulacan. Alfredo Germar was the Liberal Party candidate for mayor, Rogelio P. Santos, Jr. was a Liberal Party candidate for councilor, and Roberto C. Esquivel was a Liberal Party candidate for vice-mayor. Feliciano P. Legaspi ran for mayor under the National Unity Party. Petitioner alleged pervasive vote-buying by respondents and their supporters during the days immediately preceding the election, including the discovery of envelopes of cash and sample ballots at a homeowners association office. Despite petitioner's urgent motion before the Municipal Board of Canvassers to suspend proclamation, the MBC proclaimed Germar and Santos on May 14, 2013, and petitioner filed a Petition for Disqualification with the COMELEC on the same date.

Proceedings Before the COMELEC First Division

The Petition for Disqualification, docketed as SPA No. 13-323 (DC), was raffled to the COMELEC First Division. The division vote initially split when one commissioner was absent, prompting the constitution of a Special First Division with the COMELEC Chairman sitting in as acting member. The Special First Division, by a two-to-one vote on October 3, 2013, disqualified Germar and Santos in the electoral aspect and referred the criminal aspect for preliminary investigation to the COMELEC Law Department. The division treated the electoral and criminal aspects as distinct and applied the substantial evidence standard for the administrative disqualification proceeding.

Proceedings Before the COMELEC En Banc

Respondents moved for reconsideration before the COMELEC en banc. On July 10, 2014 the en banc voted three-to-two to deny the motion as to the electoral aspect but did not secure the required majority of all members; the criminal aspect was affirmed by a four-to-one vote. The en banc ordered a rehearing on the electoral aspect. After rehearing the en banc again failed to reach the necessary majority, the final voting remaining at a three-to-two split, with two commissioners taking no part. On January 28, 2015 the COMELEC en banc issued an Order dismissing the electoral aspect of SPA No. 13-323 (DC) pursuant to Section 6, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules, which prescribes dismissal when a case originally commenced in the Commission cannot be decided by the required majority even after rehearing.

Petition for Certiorari to the Supreme Court

Dissatisfied, Feliciano P. Legaspi filed this petition for certiorari. Petitioner alleged that the COMELEC en banc gravely abused its discretion by dismissing the electoral aspect of the disqualification petition and that the en banc misapplied Section 6, Rule 18 by treating SPA No. 13-323 (DC) as an action “originally commenced in the commission” when, petitioner asserted, only a motion for reconsideration was before the en banc and thus only the motion should have been denied or the division decision affirmed.

Issues Presented

The principal legal issues were (1) whether SPA No. 13-323 (DC) was an action “originally commenced in the commission” within the meaning of Section 6, Rule 18 so as to warrant dismissal when the en banc could not obtain the necessary majority after rehearing, and (2) what consequence follows when the COMELEC en banc, sitting en banc, cannot secure the majority required by Art. IX-A, Sec. 7, 1987 Constitution and related COMELEC rules.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Court upheld the COMELEC en banc Order of January 28, 2015 dismissing the electoral aspect of SPA No. 13-323 (DC) and reaffirmed that the COMELEC en banc acted within its discretion and in conformity with its rules and controlling jurisprudence. The Court declared Mendoza v. Commission on Elections still controlling on the point.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court began from constitutional and rule text. Art. IX-A, Sec. 7, 1987 Constitution requires that each constitutional commission decide cases “by a majority vote of all its Members.” Section 6, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules provides a procedure when the en banc is equally divided or when the necessary majority cannot be had: the case shall be reheard, and if on rehearing no decision is reached, the action or proceeding shall be dismissed if originally commenced in the Commission; in appealed cases the appealed judgment stands affirmed; and incidental matters shall be denied. The Court read the COMELEC rule in its plain language and in the context of the COMELEC Rules as a whole.

Application of the Rule to SPA No. 13-323 (DC)

The Court held that SPA No. 13-323 (DC) was plainly an action originally commenced in the COMELEC because the petition was filed at first instance with the commission and was raffled to a division. The Court rejected petitioner's narrow construction that “originally commenced in the commission” applies only to matters filed directly with the en banc. The Court reaffirmed the single and integrated process by which election cases filed with the COMELEC are decided in division and, if a motion for reconsideration is filed, continued before the en banc. Because the motion for reconsideration is part of that integrated process and not an appeal, the failure of the en banc to reach the required majority after rehearing properly produced the first effect under Section 6, Rule 18—dismissal of the original action.

Response to the Dissenting Opinion

Justice Velasco dissented, arguing that the en banc’s inability to muster the required majority should result only in the denial of the motion for reconsideration or in the affirmation of the division decision rather than in the dismissal of the entire original action

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 216572)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Feliciano P. Legaspi was the petitioner who sought relief by filing a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) was the public respondent whose en banc Order dated 28 January 2015 dismissing the electoral aspect of SPA No. 13-323 (DC) was assailed.
Alfredo Germar and Rogelio P. Santos, Jr. were private respondents who were declared winning candidates and thereafter confronted a Petition for Disqualification.
The petition challenged the COMELEC en banc’s application of Sec. 6, Rule 18, COMELEC Rules Governing Pleadings, Practice and Procedure Before It in dismissing an electoral disqualification action originally filed with the Commission.

Key Factual Allegations

Petitioner alleged that the Liberal Party candidates engaged in massive vote-buying in Norzagaray, Bulacan, during the days immediately preceding and on election day of 13 May 2013.
Petitioner alleged that envelopes containing PHP 250–PHP 500 were distributed and that boxes with undistributed cash and sample ballots were intercepted by concerned citizens and reported to police.
Respondents denied the allegations and asserted alibis, raised procedural defenses including alleged lateness and lack of certification against forum-shopping, and contended that prior criminal conviction was required for disqualification.

Procedural History

SPA No. 13-323 (DC) was originally filed with the COMELEC and raffled to the COMELEC First Division for disposition.
The COMELEC First Division vote on the petition resulted in a tie due to the absence of one commissioner, prompting the constitution of a Special First Division with Chairman Sixto S. Brillantes, Jr. sitting in.
The Special First Division rendered a 2-1 resolution dated 3 October 2013 disqualifying Germar and Santos and referring the criminal aspect to the COMELEC Law Department.
Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration with the COMELEC en banc, which first voted 3-2 to deny reconsideration on the criminal aspect and ordered a rehearing on the electoral aspect.
After rehearing the COMELEC en banc again failed to reach the necessary majority and, on 28 January 2015, issued an Order dismissing the electoral aspect pursuant to Sec. 6, Rule 18, COMELEC Rules.

Issues Presented

Whether the COMELEC en banc gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the electoral aspect of SPA No. 13-323 (DC) for failure to obtain the necessary majority vote after rehearing.
Whether the phrase “action or proceeding” in Sec. 6, Rule 18, COMELEC Rules requires dismissal of an original action filed with the COMELEC when the en banc fails to obtain a majority after rehearing, or whether only an incidental motion for reconsideration should be dismissed and the division decision sustained.

Parties' Contentions

Petitioner contended that SPA No. 13-323 (DC) was not “originally commenced in the commission” within the meaning of Sec. 6, Rule 18 because the matter before the en banc was only a motion for reconsideration and that the en banc’s failure should therefore result in denial of the motion or affirmance of the division decision.
COMELEC, through its Office of the Solicitor General, defended the dismissal as a correct application of Sec. 6, Rule 18 and relied on this Court’s precedent in Mendoza v. Commission on Elect