EN BANC
MAYOR IBARRA R. MANZALA, G.R. No. 176211
Petitioner,
Present:
PUNO,
C.J.,
QUISUMBING,
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
- versus - SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
CARPIO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,*
CORONA,*
CARPIO
MORALES,
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AZCUNA,
and JULIE R. MONTON, TINGA,
Respondents. CHICO-NAZARIO,
GARCIA,
VELASCO,
JR., and
NACHURA,
JJ.
Promulgated:
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
DECISION
AZCUNA,
J.:
This
is a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for the
issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO), or status quo ante order, and/or
writ of preliminary injunction.
Petitioner
Ibarra R. Manzala seeks to annul the resolution, dated August 24, 2006, of the
Former Second Division[1] of
the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), declaring private respondent Julie R. Monton
to be the duly elected Municipal Mayor of Magdiwang, Romblon in the May 10,
2004 National and Local Elections, and the resolution of the COMELEC en banc,[2] dated
January 24, 2007, denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and affirming
the Resolution of August 24, 2006 with modification as to the number of votes
obtained by both parties after re-appreciation.
The antecedents are as follows:
Petitioner
Ibarra R. Manzala and private respondent Julie R. Monton were mayoralty
candidates in the Municipality of Magdiwang, Romblon, during the May 10, 2004
National and Local Elections. On
On
Private
respondent filed an Answer with Counter-Protest and Counterclaim, averring that
the election was held peacefully with no irregularity whatsoever. By way of counter-protest, private respondent
contested the election in certain precincts, to wit: Precincts 41A, 40A, 39A,
38A, 37A, 36A and 35A of Barangay Tampayan; Precincts 1A, 2A, 3A, 4A, 5A, 6A,
7A, 8A, 9A and 9B of Barangay Poblacion; Precinct 16A of Barangay Agutay;
Precinct 24A of Barangay Dulangan; and Precinct 32A of Barangay Jao-asan.
Thereafter,
petitioner filed a Reply and Answer to the Counter-Protest and Counterclaim.
A
revision of ballots was later conducted.
In its decision of
WHEREFORE, premises considered, protestant
IBARRA R. MANZALA is hereby proclaimed as the duly-elected Municipal Mayor of
Magdiwang, Romblon during the election of
SO ORDERED.[3]
Petitioner
moved for the execution of the decision pending appeal which the trial court granted
on
On
appeal, private respondent raised the following assignment of errors: that the trial court seriously erred in
invalidating 144 votes of private respondent ostensibly on the ground of
pattern voting; that sets of ballots were marked, as well as written by two
persons; that the trial court erred in not considering and appreciating the
objections raised by private respondent involving the counter-protested
precincts, and in arriving at its decision, it considered only the objections
and/or exhibits of the petitioner; and that the trial court seriously erred
when it declared petitioner as the duly elected Municipal Mayor of Magdiwang,
Romblon despite the patent defects in the appealed decision.
On
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby GRANTED. The December 8, 2005 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Fourth Judicial Region, Branch 81, Romblon, Romblon in Election Protest Case No. 7 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
ACCORDINGLY,
the Commission (Former Second Division) hereby DECLARES protestee-appellant
JULIE E. MONTON, the duly-elected Municipal Mayor of Magdiwang, Romblon during
the May 10, 2004 National and Local Elections.
SO ORDERED.[4]
Petitioner’s
motion for reconsideration was denied by the COMELEC en banc in its Resolution of
Meanwhile,
acting on private respondent’s Motion for Immediate Execution and Issuance of
an Entry of Judgment, the COMELEC en banc issued a writ of execution on
Consequently, in the Order dated March 1, 2007, the COMELEC en banc
directed the implementation of the writ of execution ordering petitioner to
cease and desist from discharging the powers and functions of the Office of the
Municipal Mayor of Magdiwang, Romblon; to relinquish and vacate the post in
favor of private respondent; and to cause the smooth turn-over of the office to
the latter.
On
February 1, 2007, petitioner filed this petition for certiorari and
prohibition contending that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction in declaring private respondent as the duly elected
Municipal Mayor of Magdiwang, Romblon with a prayer that the COMELEC be
directed to cease and desist from implementing the challenged Resolutions of
August 24, 2006 and January 24, 2007.
Private
respondent maintains that “to allow the arguments of the petitioner to prevail
would make him assume office by the grace of impropriety and misappreciation of
ballots by the lower court, whose decision has already been reversed and set
aside by the Former Second Division of the COMELEC and affirmed by the
Commission en banc.”
The petition should be dismissed.
Petitioner argues that the motion for
reconsideration filed with the Former Second Division of the COMELEC “has
thrown the whole case wide open for review as in a trial de novo in a
criminal case,” yet the COMELEC en banc failed to conduct a thorough
review of the contested ballots.
This argument has no basis. Section 2 (2) of Article IX-C of the
Constitution provides the COMELEC with quasi-judicial power to exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests
relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of all elective
regional, provincial, and city officials, and appellate
jurisdiction over all contests involving elective municipal officials decided
by trial courts of general jurisdiction, or involving elective barangay
officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction. Decisions, final orders, or rulings of the
Commission on election contests involving elective municipal and barangay
offices shall be final, executory, and not appealable. Section 3 thereof states the administrative
power of the COMELEC,
either en banc or in two divisions, to promulgate its rules of procedure in order to
expedite disposition of election cases, including pre-proclamation
controversies. All such election cases
shall be heard and decided in division, provided that motions for
reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the Commission en banc.
Clearly, from the
decision of the trial court, the COMELEC exercises appellate jurisdiction to
review, revise, modify, or even reverse and set aside the decision of the
former and substitute it with its own decision.
In the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers, the
Constitution also mandates the COMELEC to hear and decide cases first by
division and upon motion for reconsideration, by the COMELEC en banc. Election cases cannot be treated in a similar
manner as criminal cases where, upon appeal from a conviction by the trial court,
the whole case is thrown open for review and the appellate court can resolve
issues which are not even set forth in the pleadings. In the present case, the COMELEC en banc had
thoroughly reviewed the decision of its Former Second Division and affirmed the
findings thereof with modification
as to the number of votes obtained by both parties after re-appreciation, that
is, private respondent obtained 2,535 votes, or a margin of 60 votes, over
petitioner’s 2,475 votes.
Petitioner further contends that the
trial court’s “judicial appreciation of the contested ballots [should be]
honored, respected, and given the importance it deserves by [this] Court.”
This contention has no merit. Section 2, Rule 64 of the Rules of Court
states that from a judgment or final order or resolution of
the COMELEC, the aggrieved party,
herein petitioner, may file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Thus, in a special civil action of certiorari
under Section 1 of Rule 65, the only question that may be raised and/or
resolved is whether or not the COMELEC had acted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[5] Such fact does not exist in the present case.
Moreover, the appreciation
of the contested ballots and election documents involves a question of fact
best left to the determination of the COMELEC, a specialized
agency tasked with the supervision of elections all over the country. To reiterate, the COMELEC is the
constitutional commission vested with the exclusive original jurisdiction over
election contests involving regional, provincial and city officials, as well as
appellate jurisdiction over election protests involving elective municipal and
barangay officials. Consequently, in the
absence of grave abuse of discretion or any jurisdictional infirmity or error
of law, the factual findings, conclusions, rulings and decisions rendered by
the said Commission on matters falling within its competence shall not be
interfered with by this Court.[6]
Finally, to justify the issuance of
an injunctive relief, petitioner claims that there had been a
“misinterpretation and misapplication of the law” by the COMELEC and that
“should the facts and circumstances presented in this petition be sufficiently
persuasive, … a writ of preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order
be issued to prevent the public respondent COMELEC from disrupting the
stability of governance in the Municipality of Magdiwang,
As a consequence of the dismissal of
the instant petition, petitioner’s prayer for any form of injunctive relief,
perforce, has no factual and legal basis.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of showing that the Commission on Elections committed any
grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed Resolution, dated August 24,
2006, by the Former Second Division and the Resolution, dated January 24, 2007,
by the Commission en banc, which
declared private respondent Julie R. Monton to be the duly elected Municipal
Mayor of Magdiwang, Romblon in the May 10, 2004 National and Local Elections.
Accordingly,
the Commission on Elections en banc is DIRECTED to forthwith
cause the full implementation of the Writ of Execution it issued on
In
view of the proximity of the next National and Local Elections on
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 |
|
|
(On
leave) MA.
ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice |
(On Leave) RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
|
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
DANTE
O. TINGA 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
* On Leave.
[1] Per Commissioner Romeo A. Brawner and concurred in by Commissioner Florentino A. Tuason, Jr.
[2] Per Commissioner Rene V. Sarmiento and concurred in by Chairman Benjamin S. Abalos and Commissioners Resurreccion Z. Borra, Florentino A. Tuason, Jr., Romeo A. Brawner, and Nicodemo T. Ferrer.
[3] See, COMELEC Resolution dated
[4]
[5] Carloto v. COMELEC, et al.,
G.R. No. 174155,
[6] Punzalan v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 126669, April 27, 1998, 289 SCRA 702 citing
Mastura v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 124521, January 29, 1998, 285 SCRA 493;
Bulaong v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 116206, February 7, 1995, 241 SCRA 180;
Navarro v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 106019, December 17, 1993, 228 SCRA 596;
Lozano v. Yorac, G.R. No. 94521, October 28, 1991, 203 SCRA 256; Pimping v. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. L-69765-67,