JEREMIAS V. ESTEVES, G.R.
No. 182374
Petitioner,
Present:
PUNO,
C.J.,
QUISUMBING,
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
- versus
- CARPIO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CARPIO
MORALES,
AZCUNA,
T.
FERRER, in their respective CHICO-NAZARIO,
capacities as Presiding Officer VELASCO,
JR.,
and
Member of the Second Division NACHURA,
COMELEC,
TEH BITONG, LEONARDO DE CASTRO, and
Respondents.
BRION, JJ.
Promulgated:
November 11, 2008
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
D E C I S I
O N
Tinga, J.:
This is a special civil action for
certiorari and prohibition[1]
under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, assailing the Resolution[2] of
the Second Division of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in SPR No.
46-2007. Said resolution set aside the Order[3]
dated 8 September 2007 issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 96,
Baler, Aurora and consequently dismissed the election protest filed by herein
petitioner Jeremias V. Esteves against private respondent Mayor Reynaldo Teh
Bitong.
As culled from the records of the
case, the following antecedent facts appear:
In the national and local elections conducted last
On
The
Private respondent then filed an answer, which the
On
Thus, private respondent filed before the COMELEC a petition for
certiorari and prohibition with application for temporary restraining order
(TRO) and/or writ of preliminary injunction.[9]
The petition sought to nullify the RTC Order dated 8 September 2007 denying
private respondent’s motion to dismiss. It also prayed that the election
protest filed by petitioner be dismissed and the proceedings thereon enjoined
on the ground that the election protest failed to comply with the requirements
of Section 11(f), Rule 2[10]
of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC. Petitioner filed an answer on 5 December 2007.
After hearing private respondent’s application, the COMELEC (Second
Division) issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on 06 December 2007, which
directed Judge Soluren to desist from further proceeding with Election Protest
Case No. 96 until further orders from the COMELEC.[11]
Thereafter, petitioner filed before this Court a special civil action for
certiorari and prohibition with application for issuance of a temporary
restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction. The petition, docketed
as G.R. No. 180792, prayed that a temporary restraining order be issued
enjoining the COMELEC (Second Division) from taking cognizance of SPR Case No.
46-2007 and that the TRO issued by the COMELEC be ordered lifted.
On 15 January 2008, the Court resolved to dismiss G.R. No. 180792 for
failure of the petition to state the material dates showing that the petition
was filed on time, failure to submit the required competent proof of identity
in the verification/certification, failure to give an explanation why service
was not personally made and failure to show that any grave abuse of discretion
was committed by the CO
On 29 February 2008, the COMELEC (Second Division) issued the assailed
resolution penned by Commissioner Nicodemo T. Ferrer. The assailed resolution
nullified the 8 September 2007 Order of the RTC and, accordingly, dismissed EPC
No. 99.[12] The other member of the Second Division,
Commissioner Rene V. Sarmiento, wrote a dissenting opinion.[13]
It appears that before the issuance of the assailed resolution, the third
member of the Second Division, Presiding Commissioner Florentino A. Tuazon, Jr.
had retired from the service.
Hence, the instant petition, raising the following arguments: (1) the
COMELEC (Second Division) has no jurisdiction to entertain special relief cases
like petitions for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus; (2) the challenged
resolution did not comply with the constitutional requirement that it must be decided
by a majority vote of all the members; and (3) the challenged resolution
negated the spirit and very purpose of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC.
The Office of the Solicitor General (
The petition deserves dismissal.
Section 3, Article IX-C of the Constitution expressly states:
Section
3. The Commission on Elections may sit en
banc or in two divisions, and shall 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.
Also, Section 7, Article IX-A of the
Constitution provides:
Section 7. Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote of
all its Members any case or matter brought before it within sixty days from the
date of its submission for decision or resolution. A case or matter is deemed
submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading,
brief, or memorandum required by the rules of the Commission or by the
Commission itself. Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law,
any decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the Supreme
Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from
receipt of a copy thereof.
Under the aforequoted constitutional provisions, the requirement that an
aggrieved party must first file a motion for reconsideration of a resolution of
the Division to the COMELEC en banc is mandatory and jurisdictional in
invoking the power of review of the Supreme Court. Failure to abide by this
procedural requirement constitutes a ground for dismissal of the petition.[16]
All election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies, shall be
decided by the COMELEC in division, and the motion for reconsideration shall be
decided by the COMELEC en banc.[17]
As held in Ambil v. Commission on Elections,[18]
the power of review of the Supreme Court of the rulings of the COMELEC is
limited only to the final decision or resolution of the COMELEC en banc and
not the final resolution of its Division. The Supreme Court has no power to
review, via certiorari, an interlocutory order or even a final
resolution of a Division of the Commission on Elections.
Moreover, pursuant to Section 5 (c), Rule 3[19]
of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, a resolution issued by a Division of the
COMELEC must first be elevated to the COMELEC en banc by filing a motion
for reconsideration.
The filing of a motion for reconsideration is mandatory because the mode
by which a decision, order or ruling of the COMELEC en banc may be
elevated to the Supreme Court is by the special civil action of certiorari
under Rule 64 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. It is settled that the filing of
a motion for reconsideration of the order, resolution or decision of the
tribunal, board or office is, subject to well-recognized exceptions, a
condition sine qua non to the institution of a special civil action for
certiorari. The rationale therefore is that the law intends to afford the
tribunal, board or office an opportunity to rectify the errors and mistakes it
may have lapsed into before resort to the courts of justice can be had.[20]
Since the COMELEC Rules of Procedure allows the review of a resolution of
the Division by the COMELEC en banc, the filing of the instant petition
for certiorari and prohibition is premature. The petition does not allege that
petitioner indeed filed a motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC en
banc. The unquestioned rule in this jurisdiction is that certiorari will
lie only if there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy
in the ordinary course of law against the acts of public respondent.[21]
Certiorari cannot be resorted to as a shield from the adverse consequences of
petitioner’s own omission to file the required motion for reconsideration.[22] A
litigant should first exhaust the administrative remedies provided by law
before seeking judicial intervention in order to give the administrative agency
an opportunity to decide correctly the matter and prevent unnecessary and
premature resort to the court.[23]
The premature invocation of
judicial intervention is fatal to one’s cause of action.[24]
WHEREFORE, the
instant petition for certiorari and prohibition is DENIED. Costs against
petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
|
LEONARDO A. QUISU Associate
Justice |
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice |
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate
Justice |
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice |
|
RENATO C. CORONA Associate
Justice |
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice |
|
ADOLFO J. AZC Associate
Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
|
RUBEN T. REYES Associate
Justice |
TERESITA J. LEONARDO DE CASTRO Associate
Justice |
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 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
[2]Dated 29 February 2008; signed by Commissioner Nicodemo T. Ferrer with Presiding Commissioner Rene V. Sarmiento, dissenting; id. at 21-29.
[10]Supreme Court A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC (2007), Rule 2, Section 11. Contents of the Protest or Petition. ― An election protest or petition for quo warranto shall specifically state the following facts: x x x
(f) a detailed specification of the acts or omissions complained of showing the electoral frauds, anomalies or irregularities in the protested precincts.
[17]Baytan v. COMELEC, 444 Phil. 812, 826 (2003); See also Milla v. Balmores-Laxa, 454 Phil. 452, 462 (2003); Villarosa v. COMELEC, 377 Phil. 497, 506 (1999); Zarate v. COMELEC, 376 Phil. 722 (1999); Canicosa v.COMELEC, 347 Phil. 189 (1999); Sarmiento v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 105628, 06 August 1992, 212 SCRA 307.
[19]Sec. 5. Quorum; Votes Required. x x x
(c) Any motion to reconsider a decision, resolution, order or ruling of a Division shall be resolved by the Commission en banc except motions on interlocutory orders of the division which shall be resolved by the division which issued the order.