[G.R. No. 154041.
ESTRELLA vs. COMELEC
EN BANC
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this
Court dated
G.R. No. 154041 (Romeo M. Estrella vs. The Commission on Elections and Rolando F. Salvador.)
Before this Court is a petition for certiorari filed on July 11, 2002, with an urgent prayer for preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining or status quo ante order, under Rule 64 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court which seeks to set aside the May 30, 2002 and July 9, 2002 Orders of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Second Division.
The antecedent facts of the case are as follows:
Romeo M. Estrella (petitioner) and Rolando F. Salvador (private
respondent) were mayoralty candidates in Baliuag, Bulacan during the
After the canvass of election returns, private respondent was proclaimed winner and he subsequently assumed office as mayor.
Petitioner thereafter filed an election protest dated May 25, 2001 with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan which was docketed as EPC No. 10-M-2001 and raffled to Branch 10 thereof presided by Judge Victoria Villalon-Pornillos.
During the pendency of the election protest, private respondent filed before the COMELEC a petition for inhibition of Judge Pornillos, docketed as SPR No. 26-2001, and a petition for certiorari and prohibition, docketed as for SPR No. 13-2002, to annul or set aside the judge’s February 21, 2001 Order denying private respondent’s motion to 1) declare petitioner as having failed to adduce evidence and 2) to prohibit the same judge from further conducting proceedings in the election protest.
By Decision[1] of
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:
1. ANNULLING and SETTING ASIDE the proclamation of protestee Rolando F. Salvador as Mayor of Baliuag, Bulacan; and
2. DECLARING protestant Romeo M. Estrella as the duly elected Mayor of Baliuag, Bulacan during the May 14, 2001 Elections, for having obtained, after due revision and appreciation of ballots, total votes of 15,564 as against Salvador’s 14,125 votes or a plurality of ONE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED THIRTY-NINE (1,439) votes. (Underscoring in the original).
On even date, petitioner filed before the trial court a motion for execution pending appeal[2] while private respondent filed a notice of appeal.
The trial court thus issued an Order[3]
requiring private respondent to comment not later than
On April 15, 2002, private respondent filed before the COMELEC a very urgent ‘motion for issuance of temporary restraining order to enjoin the trial court judge from acting on and granting the motion for execution pending appeal.
On
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court hereby grants the Protestant’s Motion for Execution Pending Appeal, upon the posting of a bond in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P500,000.00) PESOS, and accordingly orders the immediate execution of the April 10, 2002 Decision of this Court.
Let a writ of execution be issued commanding the Sheriff of this
Court to implement the
Also on
Still on
At
On April 24, 2002, private respondent filed still another Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction[9] before the COMELEC, docketed as SPC No. 21-2002 (the third COMELEC case), with the following prayers:
1. A writ of mandatory preliminary injunction be issued commanding private respondent (petitioner) to step down as municipal mayor of Baliuag, Bulacan and installing petitioner as the lawful mayor of the same municipality as the status quo ante in this case and for private respondent to immediately vacate physical possession of the Office of the Mayor at the Municipal Hall of Baliuag, Bulacan; and, to prohibit private respondent from assuming the Office of Mayor in the Municipality of Baliuag, Province of Bulacan and prevent him from physically occupying the Office of the Mayor of the Municipality of Baliuag, Bulacan and to cease and desist from performing and, exercising the functions and prerogatives of the position of mayor.
2. After due hearing, issue a resolution annulling, or declaring as a nullity the assailed first and second Special Orders dated April 16, 2002 issued by Bulacan Regional Trial Court Judge Victoria Pornillos, granting private respondent Romeo M. Estrella’s Motion for Execution Pending Appeal, for having been issued in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction, and for being a patent nullity as it was issued in defiance of two Orders issued by the Comelec en banc and its Second Division.
3. All other act or orders emanating and by virtue of the twin annulled orders must likewise be stricken down and annulled as illegal and to have no effect.
On
Acting on the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with a Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order filed by petitioner Roland F. Salvador, through counsel on April 24, 2002, in the interest of justice and so as not to render moot and academic the issues raised in the petition, the Commission (Second Division), resolved to direct the parties to maintain the status quo ante, which is the condition prevailing before the issuance and the implementation of the questioned Order of the court a quo dated April 16, 2002 [granting petitioner’s motion for execution pending appeal] and the writ of execution issued pursuant thereto on the same date in EPC No. 10-M-200[1] entitled “Romeo M. Estrella versus Rolando F. Salvador.”
ACCORDINGLY, effective immediately, until further orders from the Commission, private respondent ROMEO M. ESTRELLA is hereby ordered to cease desist from assuming and performing duties functions of the office of Mayor of Baliuag, Bulacan. (Emphasis in the original; italics and underscoring supplied)
On June 4, 2002, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration[11]
of the May 30, 2002 Order of the COMELEC Second Division in the third COMELEC
case with a prayer that said motion be certified to the COMELEC En Banc and set
for hearing. By Order[12] of
Hence, the present petition filed on
In the meantime, on
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The Special
Order dated 16 April 2002, whichever version, Order No. 7 and Order No. 9 both
dated 17 April 2002 issued by respondent presiding judge of the Regional Trial
Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 10, in the election protest case docketed as
EPC No. 10-M-2001, are hereby ANNULLED for
having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction. The Writ of
Execution dated
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of this January 16, 2003 Resolution which is now pending before COMELEC En Banc.
Before this Court, petitioner alleges that:
A.
THE COMELEC HAS NO JURISDICTION TO ISSUE A STATUS QUO ANTE ORDER. THE CONSTITUTION, THE OMNIBUS ELECTION CODE, SPECIAL LAWS OR COMELEC RULES OF PROCEDURE DOES NOT EMPOWER THE COMELEC TO ISSUE A STATUS QUO ANTE ORDER.
B.
THE 30 MAY 2002 ORDER AND
C.
THE COMELEC GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION
IN DIRECTING THE PARTIES TO “MAINTAIN THE
STATUS QUO ANTE WHICH IS THE CONDITION PREVAILING BEFORE THE ISSUANCE AND THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE QUESTIONED ORDER OF THE COURT A QUO DATED
D.
THE COMELEC GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ISSUING THE STATUS QUO ANTE ORDER WITHOUT FACTUAL OR LEGAL BASIS.
E.
THE 30 MAY 2002 ORDER WAS ISSUED IN VIOLATION OF ESTRELLA’S RIGHT TO BE HEARD BY AN IMPARTIAL AND COLLEGIAL TRIBUNAL.[14] (Italics in the original)
The present petition seeks to set aside interlocutory orders of
the Second Division of the COMELEC in the third case which has in the meantime
resolved, by Resolution of
The third case in which the assailed interlocutory orders were issued having been decided on the merits by the COMELEC division, the present petition has become moot and academic. En passant, even assuming that the COMELEC Second Division had not decided the said third case on the merits, the present petition would just the same be dismissed in light of the following provision of Article IX-A of the 1987 Constitution:
Section 7. Each Commission shall decide by a majority 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 of memorandum required by the rules of the commission or by the commission itself. Unless otherwise provided by the 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. (Citations omitted; italics in the original; emphasis supplied)
which was interpreted by this Court:
to mean final orders, rulings, and decisions of the COMELEC rendered in the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers. This decision must be a final decision or resolution of the Comelec en banc, not a division, certainly not an interlocutory order of a division. The Supreme Court has no power to review via certiorari, an interlocutory order or even a final resolution of the Division of the Commission on Elections.[15] (Italics in the original; emphasis and underscoring supplied)
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.
Very truly yours
LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court
By:
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D.
VILLARAMA
Asst. Clerk of Court
[1] Rollo at 51-123.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8] Id at 148.
[9]
[10]
[11] Id at 223-235.
[12]
[13] COMELEC Records at 407-422.
[14] Rollo at 16-17.
[15] Ambil, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, 344 SCRA 358 (2000).