Myline Cordial

293 SCRA 579

PETITION for certiorari to review a resolution of the Commission on Elections

Petitioner: Espirita Acosta
Respondents: COMELEC, MCTC Judge Genoveva Coching-Maramba, Raymundo I. Rivera

FACTS: Acosta and Rivera were candidates for the position of Punong Barangay in Bgy. Sobol, San Fabian, Pangasinan, during the May 12, 1997, barangay election. Petitioner was proclaimed as the duly elected Punong Barangay with a winning margin of four votes. Rivera filed an election protest with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of San Fabian-San Jacinto with prayer for a recount of the votes.

May 19, 1997 – Acosta filed a Motion for Time to File Answer which was denied by the court on the ground that the election protest was sufficient in form and substance.

May 21, 1997 –  The MCTC ordered the COMELEC Election Registrar and/or the Municipal Treasurer of San Fabian to bring to court the ballot boxes of Bgy. Sobol, together with their keys, list of voters with voting records, book of voters and other election documents.

May 29, 1997 – petitioner filed with the COMELEC a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction, questioning the May 21, 1997, order of the MCTC. This was docketed as SPR No. 13-97.

May 30, 1997 – The lower court rendered a decision nullifying petitioner’s proclamation and declaring Rivera as the duly elected Punong Barangay of Bgy. Sobol after finding that Rivera garnered three votes more than Acosta’s 405.

June 11, 1997 – Petitioner filed a notice of appeal which was granted by the judge.

December 2, 1997 – the COMELEC issued an en banc Resolution in SPR No. 13-97 dismissing the petition for lack of merit, and affirming the assailed order dated May 21, 1997, as well as the trial court’s decision dated May 30, 1997.

ISSUE: Whether or not COMELEC has gravely abuse its discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction when it resolved the issue on the propriety of the lower court’s order dated May 21, 1997 in the same resolution affirming the trial court’s decision dated May 30, 1997.

RULING: The Court held that the COMELEC exceeded its authority when it affirmed the trial court’s decision when said judgment was not the subject of a special civil action assailing an interlocutory order of the same lower court. Even if the decision was eventually elevated to the COMELEC on appeal, it does not cure the defect since said appeal was not consolidated with SPR No. 13-97.

Moreover, the COMELEC has again exceeded its authority when it  issued the assailed resolution in en banc. Under Article IX-C, Section 3 of the Constitution, the COMELEC must hear and decide election cases “in division, provided that motions for reconsideration of decision shall be decided by the Commission en banc.”  This Constitutional mandate was clearly violated by the COMELEC

Petition for certiorari is GRANTED.

Notes: Due process dictates that before any decision can be validly rendered in a case, the following safeguards must be met: (a) the court or tribunal must be clothed with judicial authority to hear and determine the matter before it; (b) it must have jurisdiction over the person of the party or over the property subject of the controversy; (c) the parties thereto must have been given an opportunity to adduce evidence in their behalf, and (d) such evidence must be considered by the tribunal in deciding the case.