Case Summary (G.R. No. 242118)
Trial Court Proceedings and Initial Relief
So filed his election protest with the MeTC on November 4, 2010. After recounting pilot protested precincts, the MeTC issued an Order dated May 4, 2011 dismissing the election protest. Instead of filing an appeal within the five-day period and paying the appeal fee, So filed a motion for reconsideration on May 9, 2011; the MeTC denied the motion on May 17, 2011 on the ground that it was a prohibited pleading under Section 1, Rule 6 of A.M. No. 07-04-15-SC.
COMELEC Second Division Resolution (May 14, 2012)
So filed a petition for certiorari with the COMELEC on May 31, 2011 alleging grave abuse of discretion by the MeTC judge, particularly in the court’s general and repetitive phrasing when appreciating pairs or groups of ballots allegedly written by two persons. The COMELEC Second Division, in a May 14, 2012 Resolution, granted So’s petition, reasoning that certiorari may lie despite the availability of appeals when a questioned order constitutes an oppressive exercise of judicial authority, and finding infirmities in the MeTC’s ballot appreciation.
COMELEC En Banc Resolution (October 6, 2012) and Voting Breakdown
The COMELEC en banc issued a Resolution on October 6, 2012 that, by its dispositive paragraph, denied Sevilla’s motion for reconsideration and directed the MeTC judge to conduct another revision of contested ballots. The Resolution shows three Commissioners (Lucenito N. Tagle, Armando C. Velasco, Elias R. Yusoph) concurring with the Second Division and three Commissioners (Chairman Sixto S. Brillantes, Rene V. Sarmiento, Christian Robert S. Lim) dissenting.
Dissenting View (Commissioner Limas, joined by Brillantes and Sarmiento)
The dissent argued that So’s petition before the COMELEC was procedurally infirm. It emphasized that So should have timely appealed the MeTC Order within five days; the motion for reconsideration was improper and did not toll the appeal period. The dissent maintained that certiorari cannot substitute for a lost appeal, that the petition was filed late (25 days after receipt), and that procedural rules should not be disregarded absent valid excuse for noncompliance.
Petitioner’s (Sevilla) Arguments Before the Supreme Court
Sevilla contended that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in giving due course to So’s certiorari petition after the MeTC Order had become final and executory because of So’s wrong choice of remedy. He argued that certiorari is not a substitute for an appeal and should be available only where there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. Sevilla also maintained that the MeTC complied with applicable rules in appreciating ballots and that any errors in judgment did not amount to grave abuse of discretion.
Procedural Posture Before the Supreme Court
On November 13, 2012, the Supreme Court required the COMELEC and the respondent to comment and ordered the status quo to be observed. Respondent So argued before the Court that the petition was premature because the October 6, 2012 COMELEC en banc Resolution was not a majority decision—only six Commissioners participated, and the Resolution reflected a 3-3 division—thus lacking legal effect and warranting remand for hearing by a full Commission.
Supreme Court Legal Analysis and Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition as prematurely filed and remanded SPR (BRGY-SK) No. 70-2011 to the COMELEC en banc for appropriate action. The Court held that the October 6, 2012 en banc Resolution had no legal effect because it did not constitute a majority decision as required by Section 7, Article IX-A of the 1987 Constitution and by Section 5(a), Rule 3 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. Those provisions require a majority vote of all members of the Commission (i.e., four votes when the Commission sits en banc) for pronouncement of a decision, resolution, order, or ruling. A 3-3 split does not attain the necessary majority and therefore merely indicates tha
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 242118)
Procedural posture
- Petition for certiorari with prayer for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and/or status quo ante order filed by Mamerto T. Sevilla, Jr. to nullify:
- the May 14, 2012 Resolution of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Second Division (SPR (BRGY‑SK) No. 70‑2011), and
- the October 6, 2012 Resolution of the COMELEC en banc in the same case.
- The assailed COMELEC resolutions reversed and set aside the May 4, 2011 Order of the Muntinlupa City Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 80, which had dismissed Renato R. So’s election protest against Sevilla.
- On November 13, 2012, the Supreme Court required the COMELEC and the respondent to comment on the petition and observed the status quo prevailing before the issuance of the assailed COMELEC resolutions.
- The Supreme Court resolved to dismiss the petition as prematurely filed and remanded the case to the COMELEC en banc for appropriate action and rehearing.
Facts
- Sevilla and Renato R. So were candidates for Punong Barangay of Barangay Sucat, Muntinlupa City in the October 25, 2010 Barangay and SK elections.
- On October 26, 2010, the Board of Election Tellers proclaimed Sevilla winner with 7,354 votes, a margin of 628 votes over So’s 6,726 votes.
- On November 4, 2010, So filed an election protest with the MeTC alleging electoral fraud, anomalies and irregularities in all the protested precincts, pinpointing 20% of the total protested precincts and praying for a manual revision of the ballots.
- After recount of ballots in the pilot protested precincts, the MeTC issued an Order dated May 4, 2011 dismissing So’s election protest.
Movements and filings after the MeTC Order
- On May 9, 2011, So filed a motion for reconsideration from the MeTC dismissal order instead of a notice of appeal; he also failed to pay the appeal fee within the reglementary period.
- On May 17, 2011, the MeTC denied So’s motion for reconsideration on the ground that it was a prohibited pleading pursuant to Section 1, Rule 6 of A.M. No. 07‑04‑15‑SC.
- On May 31, 2011, So filed a petition for certiorari with the COMELEC, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the MeTC judge—principally faulting the MeTC for non‑observance of required rules in the appreciation of ballots and for couched, general findings lacking the required specific presentation explaining why certain ballots were considered written by one or two persons.
MeTC’s grounds for dismissal (as described in the record)
- The MeTC, after recount of pilot precinct ballots, dismissed the election protest via its May 4, 2011 Order.
- The MeTC judge’s Order was characterized by subsequent adjudicators as using general and repetitive phraseology and not complying with the mandatory form and detailed requirements prescribed for decisions in election protests involving pairs or groups of ballots written by two persons.
COMELEC Second Division Resolution (May 14, 2012)
- The COMELEC Second Division granted So’s petition for certiorari.
- It held that certiorari may be granted despite the availability of appeals when the challenged order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority.
- It ruled the MeTC Order was fraught with infirmities and irregularities in the appreciation of ballots and was couched in general terms, quoting the MeTC’s language: “these are not written by one person observing the different strokes, slant, spacing, size and indentation of handwriting and the variance in writing.”
- The Second Division’s Resolution was penned by Presiding Commissioner Lucenito N. Tagle and concurred in by Commissioner Elias R. Yusoph.
COMELEC en banc Resolution (October 6, 2012)
- The COMELEC en banc, by a 3–3 vote, affirmed the COMELEC Second Division’s ruling in a Resolution whose dispositive portion directed the MeTC judge to conduct another revision of the contested ballots in Election Protest Case No. SP‑6719 “with dispatch.”
- Commissioners Lucenito N. Tagle, Armando C. Velasco and Elias R. Yusoph concurred; Chairman Sixto S. Brillantes, Commissioners Rene V. Sarmiento and Christian Robert S. Lim dissented.
- The en banc emphasized that procedural technicalities should be disregarded for immediate and final resolution of election cases and that ballots should be read with utmost liberality so that the electorate’s will is not defeated by technical infirmities.
- It found that the MeTC judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when she allegedly did not comply with mandatory requirements of Section 2(d), Rule 14 of A.M. No. 07‑4‑15‑SC on the form of decision in cases with pairs/groups of ballots written by two persons.
- The en banc noted that the MeTC judge’s findings appeared “copy‑pasted” into the decision and that the judge failed to mention examining the Minutes of Voting and Counting to ascertain whether there were illiterate or assisted voters in the protested precincts.
Commissioner Limas Dissent
- The dissent (joined by Chairman Brillantes and Commissioner Sarmiento) argued that So’s petition should be dismissed on procedural grounds.
- First, So should have filed an appeal