EN BANC
ANTONIO A. DIMAYUGA, G.R.
No. 174763
Petitioner,
Present:
PUNO, C.J.,
QUISUMBING,
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
- versus - CARPIO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CARPIO MORALES,
CALLEJO, SR.,
AZCUNA,
TINGA,
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS CHICO-NAZARIO,
and MARIO V. MAGSAYSAY, GARCIA,
Respondents. VELASCO, JR., and
NACHURA, JJ.
Promulgated:
April
24, 2007
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
DECISION
AZCUNA,
J.:
This is a petition[1]
for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary
Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order seeking the nullification of the Order
of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) en banc issued on
The
facts[2]
are as follows:
Petitioner
and private respondent vied for the mayoralty post of the
Petitioner
filed an election protest[3]
before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 3, of Batangas City based on the
following grounds: a) misreading or
miscounting of ballots; b) substitute voting; c) disenfranchisement of voters
when they failed to register; d) clustering of precincts; and e) erasures in
the Statement of Votes by Precinct.
After
the revision of ballots, the case was submitted for decision. On
On
On
On May 4, 2006, private respondent
filed a petition for certiorari with prayer for a temporary restraining
order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary injunction with the COMELEC, Second Division,[5] assailing
the May 2, 2006 Special Order of the trial court. He alleged that: a) no good
reason was cited to justify the issuance of the Special Order and the Writ of
Execution; b) the Writ of Execution did not comply with the requirements of the
Special Order since it was issued without the required bond of P100,000; c) there
is yet no final determination that a “majority” of the electorate of San
Pascual, Batangas really voted for petitioner; and d) and that there is no
certainty that the appealed decision of the trial court would be affirmed.
On
The margin of forty-one (41) votes
coupled with the grounds mentioned in the Special Order which, to our mind,
were merely general statements lacking in specific justifications, do not
warrant the issuance of the extra-ordinary writ of execution pending appeal. It
is therefore deemed that great or irreparable injury shall befall upon the
petitioner if the order granting execution pending appeal is immediately
implemented.
And it is also to the best interest
of the electorate of San Pascual, Batangas that the said Order is stayed for the
meantime.
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the prayer for the issuance of [a] temporary restraining
order is hereby granted.
Respondent Judge Galvez is hereby
ordered to cease and desist from implementing the
The hearing for the issuance of the
writ of preliminary injunction is hereby set on
Respondent Antonio A. Dimayuga is
also hereby ordered to submit his comment and/or answer to the petition within
five (5) days from receipt hereof.
SO ORDERED.[6]
On
Meanwhile, the hearing for the
issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction was reset to
In his Manifestation and Motion filed
on
On
Meanwhile, the hearing for the
issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction was again reset to
On
WHEREFORE,
the petition is hereby DENIED. Let the Writ of Execution issued by public
respondent dated
SO ORDERED.[7]
On
On
Due to this mayoralty controversy,
Secretary Ronaldo V. Puno of the Department of the Interior and Local
Government issued a Memorandum on October 2, 2006, stating:
. . .
It
could be recalled that in view of the legal question involved in the mayoralty
controversy in San Pascual, Batangas, the Department initially referred the
matter to the COMELEC for clarification and guidance in taking further actions.
As of this date, however, we are still awaiting the reply of the COMELEC.
In view of this turn of events, and
in order to ease the tension brought about by the intense emotions from the
supporters of each camp, and in order to restore order in the municipal
government so as not to jeopardize the delivery of essential basic public
services, this Department is thus constrained, based on available records
whereupon we can reasonably draw our objective and fair legal position, to
recognize the incumbency of Mr. Antonio A. Dimayuga as Mayor of San Pascual,
Batangas, his re-assumption to office
having been made by virtue of a Writ of Execution Pending Appeal earlier issued
by the court.
May we emphasize, however, that this
pronouncement is subject to whatever official reply that the COMELEC will make
on our earlier query…[8]
On
October 4, 2006, private respondent filed an Urgent Motion for Resolution of
the Issue as to Whether the Special Order of Execution Pending Appeal Could be
Executed Pending Resolution of the Motion for Reconsideration and/or Motion for
Immediate Resolution of the Pending Motion for Reconsideration with the
COMELEC en banc.
On
In said Urgent Motion, petitioner
raised that the Special Order of Execution Pending Appeal was issued by the
lower court with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
He stated that on the basis alone of Precinct 53A/B, the respondent court
invalidated a total of 105 ballots of petitioner being allegedly “fake and
spurious” without identifying the Exhibit numbers of the said 105 ballots but
as shown in page 67 of the Decision of the said lower court, the private
respondent objected to only 38 ballots of the petitioner in the said precinct
marked as EXHIBITS D-1 to D-38. Petitioner likewise raised the question as to
why the lower court annulled 105 ballots when it ruled that of the said 105
ballots, 33 ballots are genuine ballots.
ACCORDINGLY, finding the reasons
stated in the petitioner’s Urgent Motion to be impressed with merit the
Commission en banc hereby GRANTS the same pursuant to Section 2, Rule 19 of the
1993 Comelec Rules of Procedure.
In the meantime that the Commission
en banc is resolving the petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration and the case
on the merits, the Commission en banc hereby issues a STATUS QUO ANTE ORDER
directing both parties to observe and maintain the status of the case prior to
the promulgation of the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 3,
Batangas City dated April 18, 2006 effective immediately for a period of
sixty (60) days or until December 9, 2006. In which case, private
respondent Antonio A. Dimayuga is hereby directed to cease and desist from performing
the duties and functions of the Mayor of San Pascual, Batangas and to
peacefully vacate the said post in favor of petitioner Mario V. Magsaysay.
SO ORDERED.[9]
Subsequently,
on
Herein resolved is the petitioner’s Motion for Clarification and/or to Extend Period of Suspension of Implementation, referring to the en banc Order of the Commission, dated 10 October 2006, directing a STATUS QUO ANTE with a duration of sixty (60) days or until December 9, 2006, in this case, under Section 2, Rule 19 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, suspending the assumption of the respondent of the office of the mayor of San Pascual, Batangas per the order of execution of judgment pending appeal granted by public respondent Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 3, Batangas City.
The said status quo ante was ordered by this Commission en banc pending resolution of petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (of the adverse decision of the Second Division of this Commission) based on serious allegations of errors apparently committed by the presiding judge of the court a quo, citing the record of the case as prima facie evidence, in order to afford this Commission en banc sufficient time to study the voluminous record of the case and render a just judgment to both parties. However, the sixty-day period has proven to be insufficient for the Commission en banc to complete its preparation of this resolution of the said motion for reconsideration in view of the thorough review and analysis that it has had to conduct of each and every one of the many ballots contested by the parties.
In view of the foregoing, the Commission en banc finds the necessity of further extending the implementation of said order of execution pending appeal issued by the court a quo, relying on Section 2, Rule 19 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, and on the suspension of its rules of procedure “in the interest of justice” as provided for in Section 4, Rule 1 of said Rules.
WHEREFORE, finding that the interest of justice will best be subserved and, in order to maintain peace in the Municipality of San Pascual, Batangas, with specific reference to the position of Municipal Mayor thereof, the STATUS QUO ANTE issued on October 10, 2006, is hereby extended until the herein petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration is finally resolved by the Commission en banc.
SO ORDERED.[10]
Hence,
this petition raising the sole issue of whether the COMELEC committed grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the
Status Quo Ante Order and/or Resolution.
The
petition should be dismissed for the following reasons:
One,
the assailed Order of the COMELEC en banc
was issued pursuant to Section 2, Rule 19 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of
Procedure which provides that “a motion to reconsider a decision, resolution,
order or ruling of a Division shall be filed within five (5) days from the
promulgation thereof. Such motion, if not pro forma, suspends the
execution or implementation of the decision, resolution, order or ruling.”
Thus, the above motion that was
timely filed by private respondent, and which the COMELEC en banc did
not find to be pro forma, suspended
the implementation of the Resolution issued by the COMELEC, Second Division, on
Two, the power of this Court to review[11]
decisions of the COMELEC as prescribed in Section 7, Article IX-A of the
Constitution refers to final orders,
rulings and decisions of the COMELEC en banc, in accordance with the
pronouncement in Ambil, Jr. v. Commission on Elections.[12] Hence, the status quo ante order of
the COMELEC en banc, being in the nature of an interlocutory order, will
not be reviewed herein by this Court.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED but the Commission on
Elections is ORDERED to finally resolve
SPR Case No. 5-2006 with utmost dispatch.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
ADOLFO
S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
|
REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice |
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice |
|
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice |
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
|
MA. ALICIA
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate
Justice DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR. Associate
Justice MINITA V.
CHICO-NAZARIO Associate
Justice |
|
CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision
were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court.
[2] Rollo, pp. 30-36, 60-61.
[3] Docketed as Civil Case No. 7491.
[4] Docketed as EAC No. A-08-2006.
[5] SPR No. 05-2006.
[6] Rollo, p. 59.
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] Section 2, Rule 64 of the Rules of Court states: “A judgment or final order or resolution of the Commission on Elections … may be brought by the aggrieved party to the Supreme Court on certiorari under Rule 65, except as hereinafter provided.”
[12] G.R. No. 143398,