EN BANC
[G.R. No. 219289. June 19, 2018.]
JEFFERSON P. SORIANO, petitioner,vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS FIRST DIVISION AND DELFIN T. TING, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution datedJUNE 19, 2018, which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 219289 (Jefferson P. Soriano v. Commission on Elections First Division and Delfin T. Ting). — Before the Court is a Petition for Certiorari1 under Rule 65 to set aside and annul the Orders of the COMELEC First Division dated June 18, 2015 2 and July 20, 2015 3 issued in EPC No. 2013-20 entitled Delfin T. Ting vs. Jefferson P. Soriano.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
Petitioner Jefferson P. Soriano (Soriano) and private respondent Delfin T. Ting (Ting) were two of the three rival candidates for Mayor of Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, in the May 13, 2013 elections. After the counting and canvassing of votes, petitioner was proclaimed as the winner having received 31,553 votes over private respondent's 30,348 votes, thus winning by a margin of 1,205 votes. Private respondent filed an election protest against petitioner alleging widespread fraud and irregularities, thus assailing the results in all 102 precincts of Tuguegarao City. Petitioner denied the allegations and moved for the summary dismissal of the protest and filed a counter protest.
The COMELEC First Division, 4 set the case for preliminary conference. In an Order dated September 13, 2013, twenty-one (21) clustered precincts were identified as pilot protested precincts. After the decryption and printing of the ballots and the retrieval of the rejected ballots for the 21 pilot protested precincts, four recount committees were reconstituted. When the recount proceeding was terminated, the results showed that there was no reasonable recovery in the initial revision of the ballots in the 21 protested precincts.
Subsequently, private respondent filed a motion to conduct technical examination of pertinent election paraphernalia and other documents in certain precincts and prayed for the examination of the signatures and thumbmarks appearing on the Voters Registration Records ("VRRs")/Book of Voters and the Election Day Computerized Voters List ("EDCVL") which was opposed by petitioner. The COMELEC initially denied private respondent's motion but was later reconsidered and allowed the technical examination.
In its Order dated April 13, 2015, the COMELEC First Division deemed the case submitted for its determination of whether to continue with the recount or revision of the ballots in the remaining 81 protested clustered precincts, or to dismiss the same for failure of respondent to establish reasonable recovery from the 21 pilot protested precincts.
In the assailed Order 5 dated June 18, 2015, the COMELEC First Division found prima facie merit or legitimacy in the protest, and directed the recount or revision of the ballots in the 81 remaining protested clustered precincts. In so ruling, it found that:
(T)he Commission (First Division), in its performance of its duty, has an imperative duty to promptly ascertain by all means within its command the candidates the electorate has chosen. In fact, Section 6 (b), Rule 15 of COMELEC Resolution No. 8804 gives it considerable latitude in adopting means and method that would insure the achievement of its mandate to protect the integrity of the ballots. It must be noted that the dismissal in the aforesaid provision is couched in the permissive term "may" instead of the mandatory word "shall". Therefore, it is merely directory, and the Commission (First Division) is not without authority to opt to proceed with the revision of ballots in the remaining contested precincts even if there was no reasonable recovery made by the protestant in the initial revision. Here, the importance of the results of the technical examinations cannot be discounted as it raises material issues that need to be accounted. The substantial number of signatures and thumbmarks found in the EDCVL to be not identical with those appearing in the VRRs is highly irregular. Significantly, the 1,662 number of signatures found to be not identical with those appearing in the VRR and EDCVL is higher than the 1,205 lead of protestee over protestant. Also, out of the 5,546 records examined, the number of registered voters with thumbprints in EDCVL is only 509. These unusual circumstances are not merely persuasive but of compelling character to enjoin the Commission (First Division) to proceed with the revision of the ballots. The circumstances show a paramount need to dispel the uncertainty which beclouds the elections for the mayoral position of Tuguegarao City. x x x. 6
Petitioner moved for partial reconsideration in so far as the inclusion of the result of the technical examination as basis for its ruling. However, in the second assailed Order dated July 20, 2015, the same was denied. Petitioner filed a motion to elevate the case to the COMELEC en banc, which the First Division also denied.
Hence, the instant petition for certiorari filed by petitioner alleging that the COMELEC First Division committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in finding that there was prima facie merit or legitimacy in the protest despite the finding that there was no reasonable recovery from the 21 pilot protested precincts and in resolving to proceed with the recount of the remaining 81 protested precincts. DETACa
Preliminarily, petitioner's filing of the instant petition for certiorari in assailing the COMELEC First Division's interlocutory orders is improper.
In Gov. Sahali vs. COMELEC, 7 we held:
The petitioners resort to the extraordinary remedy of certiorari to assail an interlocutory order issued by the COMELEC First Division is amiss. "A party aggrieved by an interlocutory order issued by a Division of the COMELEC in an election protest may not directly assail the order in this Court through a special civil action for certiorari. The remedy is to seek the review of the interlocutory order during the appeal of the decision of the Division in due course.
Under the Constitution, the power of this Court to review election cases falling within the original exclusive jurisdiction of the COMELEC only extends to final decisions or resolutions of the COMELEC en banc, not to interlocutory orders issued by a Division thereof. Section 7, Article IX of the Constitution mandates:
Sec. 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.
In Ambil, Jr. v. COMELEC, this Court elucidated on the import of the said provision in this wise:
We have interpreted this provision 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 of 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 a Division of the Commission on Elections.
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 65 of the 1964 Revised Rules of Court, now expressly provided in Rule 64, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
Rule 65, Section 1, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, requires that there be no appeal, or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. A motion for reconsideration is a plain and adequate remedy provided by law. Failure to abide by this procedural requirement constitutes a ground for dismissal of the petition.
In like manner, a decision, order or resolution of a division of the COMELEC must be reviewed by the COMELEC en banc via a motion for reconsideration before the final en banc decision may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari. The pre-requisite filing of a motion for reconsideration is mandatory. x x x. 8
In the instant case, the assailed Orders dated June 18, 2015 and July 20, 2015 issued by the COMELEC First Division are interlocutory orders. Petitioner should have waited for the decision of the COMELEC First Division in the election protest filed by private respondent, and if unsatisfied, to appeal the same to the COMELEC en banc by filing a motion for reconsideration. While the Court has allowed direct resort via certiorari in assailing an interlocutory order, it was only when a Division of the COMELEC commits grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack of jurisdiction, which we find none in the instant case.
Moreover, the issue of whether the COMELEC First Division committed grave abuse of discretion when it resolved to proceed with the recount of the remaining 81 protested precincts on the basis of the results of the technical examination of documents is now moot and academic. Notably, subsequent to the filing of the instant petition by petitioner, private respondent had filed a Manifestation and Motion 9 in the protest case praying among others, that the COMELEC First Division issue an Order granting (1) the withdrawal of his motion for technical examination, (2) the withdrawal of the recount or revision of the ballots under the remaining protested precincts, and which the COMELEC had already granted in its Order 10 dated September 11, 2015. Thus, there is no more need to address the issue. aDSIHc
WHEREFORE, the instant petition for certiorari is hereby DISMISSED." (adv64)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETAClerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 8-30.
2.Id. at 33-48.
3.Id. at 50-54.
4. Through its Presiding Commissioner, Hon. Lucenito N. Tagle.
5.Supra note 2.
6.Rollo, pp. 47-48.
7. 701 Phil. 503, 520 (2013).
8.Id. at 511-513.
9.Rollo, pp. 150-152.
10.Id. at 155-159.