SARMIENTO vs COMELEC
G.R. No. 105628
DAVIDE, JR., J.:
The special civil actions for certiorari, hereby jointly resolved, filed under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, seek to set aside the Resolutions of
respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in the following Special
Cases (SPC):
1) G.R. No. 105628 -- SPC No. 92-266 granting the appeal from the
ruling of the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Virac, Catanduanes which
ordered the exclusion from the canvass of one (1) election return;
2) G.R. No. 105725 -- SPC No. 92-323 reversing the ruling of the City
Board of Canvassers of Iriga City which ordered the exclusion from the
canvass of six (6) election returns and in UND No. 92-243 ordering the said
Board of Canvassers to include in the canvass the election returns involved
therein;
3) G.R. No. 105727 -- SPC No. 92-288 dismissing the appeal of petitioner
from the ruling of the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Catanduanes which
ordered the inclusion in the canvass the certificate of canvass for the
municipality of Virac, excluding the returns from 48 precincts;
4) G.R. No. 105730 -- SPC No. 92-315 affirming the ruling of the
Municipal Board of Canvassers of Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte
which dismissed petitioner's opposition to the composition of the said
Municipal Board of Canvassers;
5) G.R. No. 105771 -- SPC No. 92-271 affirming the ruling of the
Municipal Board of Canvassers of Cabusao, Camarines Sur which, among
others, rejected petitioner's objection to certain election returns;
6) G.R. No. 105778 -- SPC No. 92-039 dismissing said case for non-
compliance with Section 20 of R.A. No. 7166;
7) G.R. No. 105797 -- SPC No. 92-153 affirming the rulings of the
Provincial Board of Canvassers of Davao Oriental which rejected
petitioner's objections to the canvass of some certificates of canvass;
8) G.R. No. 105919 -- SPC No. 92-293 dismissing petitioner's appeal
from the ruling of the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Upi Nuro,
Maguindanao;
9) G.R. No. 105977 -- SPC No. 92-087 denying the amended pre-
proclamation petition, which is an appeal from the rulings of the Municipal
Board of Canvassers of Ternate, Cavite, and denying a subsequent motion
to resolve the issues raised in said amended petition.
Comments had been filed only in G.R. No. 105727 and G.R. No. 105797.
This Court dispenses with the Comments in the other cases.
Petitioners impugn the challenged resolutions above specified as having
been issued with grave abuse of discretion in that, inter alia, the
Commission, sitting en banc, took cognizance of and decided the appeals
without first referring them to any of its Divisions.
Section 3, subdivision C, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution expressly
provides:
"SEC. 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 decid
ed in division, provided that motions for reconsideration of decisions shall
be decided by the Commission en banc." (Emphasis supplied).
The 1973 Constitution prescribed another rule. Its Section 3, subdivision C
of Article XII provided as follows:
"SEC. 3. The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in three
divisions. All election cases may be heard and decided by divisions, except
contests involving Members of the Batasang Pambansa, which shall be
heard and decided en banc. x x x"
It is clear from the abovequoted provision of the 1987 Constitution that
election cases include pre-proclamation controversies, and all such cases
must first be heard and decided by a Division of the Commission. The
Commission, sitting en banc, does not have the authority to hear and decide
the same at the first instance. In the COMELEC RULES OF PROCEDURE,
pre-proclamation cases are classified as Special Cases and, in compliance
with the above provision of the Constitution, the two (2) Divisions of the
Commission are vested with the authority to hear and decide these Special
Cases. Rule 27 thereof governs Special Cases; specifically, Section 9 of the
said Rule provides that appeals from rulings of the Board of Canvassers are
cognizable by any of the Divisions to which they are assigned and not by the
Commission en banc. Said Section reads:
"SEC. 9. Appeals from rulings of Board of Canvassers. -- (a) A party
aggrieved by an oral ruling of the board of canvassers who had stated orally
his intent to appeal said ruling shall, within five days following receipt of a
copy of the written ruling of the board of canvassers, file with the
Commission a verified appeal, furnishing a copy thereof to the board of
canvassers and the adverse party.
(b) The appeal filed with the Commission shall be docketed by the Clerk of
Court concerned.
(c) The answer/opposition shall be verified.
(d) The Division to which the case is assigned shall immediately set the case
for hearing." (Emphasis supplied)
xxx
A motion to reconsider the decision or resolution of the Division concerned
may be filed within five (5) days from its promulgation. The Clerk of Court
of the Division shall, within twenty-four (24) hours from the filing thereof,
notify the Presiding Commissioner of such fact; in turn, the latter shall
certify the case to the Commission en banc. Thereafter, the Clerk of Court
of the Commission shall calendar the motion for reconsideration for the
resolution of the Commission en banc within ten (10) days from the
certification.
Indisputably then, the COMELEC en banc acted without jurisdiction, or
with grave abuse of discretion, when it resolved the appeals of petitioners in
the abovementioned Special Cases without first referring them to any of its
Divisions. Said resolutions are, therefore, null and void and must be set
aside. Consequently, the appeals are deemed pending before the
Commission for proper referral to a Division.
A resolution directing the COMELEC to assign said Special Cases to the
Divisions pursuant to Section 8, Rule 3 of its Rules on assignment of cases
would, logically, be in order. However, Section 16 of R.A. No. 7166 provides
that all pre-proclamation cases pending before it shall be deemed
terminated at the beginning of the term of the office involved. The said
section provides as follows:
xxx
"All pre-proclamation cases pending before the Commission shall be
deemed terminated at the beginning of the term of the office involved and
the rulings of the boards of canvassers concerned shall be deemed affirmed,
without prejudice to the filing of a regular election protest by the aggrieved
party. However, proceedings may continue when on the basis of the
evidence thus far presented, the Commission determines that the petition
appears meritorious and accordingly issues an order for the proceeding to
continue or when an appropriate order has been issued by the Supreme
Court in a petition for certiorari."
The terms of the offices involved in the Special Cases subject of these
petitions commenced at noon of 30 June 1992. These cases have thus been
rendered moot and such a resolution would only be an exercise in futility.
Accordingly, the instant petitions are DISMISSED without prejudice to
the filing by petitioners of regular election protests. If the winning
candidates for the positions involved in the Special Cases subject of these
petitions have already been proclaimed, the running of the period to file the
protests shall be deemed Suspended by the pendency of such cases before
the COMELEC and of these petitions before this Court.
The Temporary Restraining Orders issued in G.R. No. 105727, G.R. No.
105730 and G.R. No. 105797 are hereby LIFTED.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Gutierrez, Jr., Padilla, Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea,
Regalado, Romero, Nocon and Bellosillo, JJ., concur.
