Scribd
Upload
151 views1 page

Abella vs. Larrazabal: December 21, 1989

This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from December 21, 1989 involving the election of a provincial governor in Leyte. Petitioner Benjamin Abella ran against Adelina Larrazabal, who substituted for her husband Emeterio Larrazabal after he was disqualified. While objections were filed regarding Adelina's residency, the COMELEC dismissed the case. The Supreme Court then took up whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in its rulings upholding Adelina's candidacy.

Uploaded by

Karen Ronquillo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
151 views1 page

Abella vs. Larrazabal: December 21, 1989

This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from December 21, 1989 involving the election of a provincial governor in Leyte. Petitioner Benjamin Abella ran against Adelina Larrazabal, who substituted for her husband Emeterio Larrazabal after he was disqualified. While objections were filed regarding Adelina's residency, the COMELEC dismissed the case. The Supreme Court then took up whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in its rulings upholding Adelina's candidacy.

Uploaded by

Karen Ronquillo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

RONQUILLO, KAREN N.

Admin & Election Laws


LLB 2 5:30-8:30 Tue

ABELLA VS. LARRAZABAL


December 21, 1989

FACTS:

Petitioner Benjamin P. Abella was the official candidate of the Liberal Party for provincial governor of
Leyte in the local election held on February 1, 1988. Emeterio V. Larrazabal was also a candidate for the same
position representing Lakas ng Bansa-PDP-Laban but was disqualified by the Commission on Elections on
January 18, 1988, for lack of residence. On January 31, 1988, the day before the election, private respondent
Adelina Larrazabal, the wife of Emeterio V. Larrazabal, filed her own certificate of candidacy (COC) in
substitution of her husband.

On the following day, at about 9:30 in the morning, one Silvestre dela Cruz, a registered voter of
Tacloban City, filed a petition to disqualify Adelina for alleged false statements in her COC regarding her
residency. The petition was immediately transmitted to the main office of the COMELEC but was not acted upon
for the reason that the latter has not yet been fully constituted. Dela Cruz then came to the Court, which issued a
temporary restraining order enjoining the Provincial Board of Canvassers from proclaiming Adelina as the
winning candidate.

In the meantime, Abella elevated various objections to the COMELEC in 10 separate appeals. Pending
resolution of these case, Abella intervened in the disqualification case and the following day filed a criminal
complaint with the Law Department of the COMELEC charging the private respondent with falsification and
misrepresentation of her residence in her certificate of candidacy.

SECOND DIVISION:
a. Pre-proclamation Case
On February 3, 1989, this Division unanimously upheld virtually all the challenged rulings of the
provincial board of canvassers, mostly on the ground that the objections raised were merely formal and did not
affect the validity of the returns or the ballots, and ordered the proclamation of the winner after completion of the
canvass.

b. Disqualification Case
The case was also dismissed by a 2-1 decision, and the matter was referred to the Law Department for
"preliminary investigation for possible violation of Section 74 of the Omnibus Election Code.

COMELEC EN BANC:
The motion for reconsideration of the resolution on the pre-proclamation cases was denied by the
COMELEC en banc on April 13, 1989, with no dissenting vote. The motion for reconsideration of the resolution
on the disqualification case was also denied by the COMELEC en banc on May 4, 1989, but with three
commissioners dissenting.

ISSUE/S:
a. Whether or not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in its decision in its decision dated
February 3, 1989, and in its en banc resolution dated April 13, 1989, denying reconsideration.
b.

You might also like