G.R. No. 129096 November 19, 1999
MARIVIC ZARATE, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and JULIAN LALLAVE, JR., respondents.

FACTS

During the 1996 Sangguniang Kabataan elections in Barangay Ican, Malasiqui, Pangasinan, private respondent Julian Lallave, Jr. was proclaimed the winner over petitioner Marivic Zarate by a single vote, 46 to 45. Zarate filed an election protest before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), contending that three or more ballots bearing only the initials “JL” credited to Lallave were stray votes and should be invalidated. The MTC ruled in Zarate’s favor, invalidating eight of Lallave’s ballots as marked and one of Zarate’s ballots, resulting in a final tally of 44 votes for Zarate and 38 for Lallave. The MTC thus annulled Lallave’s proclamation and declared Zarate the duly elected SK Chairman.
Lallave appealed to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). He argued that the ballots with “JL” initials should be counted in his favor as he was the only candidate with those initials, and that other contested ballots using his nickname or middle name sufficiently identified him. The COMELEC En Banc, without referring the appeal to a Division, issued the assailed Resolution dated April 24, 1997. It reversed the MTC, validated the “JL” ballots, and declared Lallave the duly elected Chairman. The COMELEC held that the initials “JL” sufficiently identified Lallave as the intended candidate. Zarate then filed this Petition for Certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC En Banc acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in taking cognizance of and deciding the appeal from the MTC decision without first referring it to a Division.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the COMELEC En Banc Resolution. The Court ruled that the COMELEC En Banc acted without jurisdiction. Under Section 3, Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution , the COMELEC may sit en banc or in two divisions. It explicitly provides that all election cases shall be heard and decided in division, and only motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the Commission en banc. The appeal filed by Lallave from the MTC decision was an original election case, not a motion for reconsideration of a prior COMELEC Division ruling. Therefore, it fell under the mandatory requirement to be heard and decided first by a Division. The COMELEC En Banc’s direct assumption of jurisdiction over the appeal was a violation of this constitutional procedure, rendering its Resolution null and void. The Court ordered the case to be assigned to a COMELEC Division for proper resolution. The legal logic is clear: the constitutional and procedural framework mandates a hierarchical review where divisions act as tribunals of first instance in election appeals, preserving the integrity of the review process and ensuring due deliberation before en banc consideration. The Court did not reach the substantive issue of ballot appreciation, as the jurisdictional defect was dispositive.