GR 108533; (December, 1994) (Digest)
G.R. No. 108533 December 20, 1994
LOU A. ATIENZA, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and ANTONIO G. SIA, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Antonio G. Sia was proclaimed mayor of Madrilejos, Cebu, after the 1988 elections. Petitioner Lou A. Atienza filed an election protest with the Regional Trial Court (RTC). After revision, the RTC declared Atienza the winner and ordered Sia to reimburse Atienza’s election protest expenses amounting to P300,856.19. Sia appealed this decision to the COMELEC, contesting both the vote computation and the award of damages.
Following the May 1992 synchronized elections, the COMELEC’s Second Division, pursuant to a resolution declaring all cases from the 1988 elections moot, dismissed Sia’s appeal (EAC No. 20-89) as moot and academic. Sia sought clarification, and the Second Division specified that only the appeal was dismissed, not the underlying protest case. Sia then moved for reconsideration, arguing the dismissal would leave the monetary award intact without review. The COMELEC en banc subsequently took up the case.
ISSUE
Did the COMELEC commit grave abuse of discretion in reversing the RTC’s monetary award after having dismissed the appeal as moot?
RULING
No. The COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court held that the dismissal of the appeal as moot pertained only to the aspect of the RTC decision concerning the right to the elective office, which became irrelevant after the 1992 elections. The issue of the monetary award for expenses, however, was not rendered moot by the expiration of the term. The COMELEC validly retained jurisdiction to review this distinct aspect of the appealed judgment.
On the merits of the award, the Supreme Court sustained the COMELEC’s reversal. The Court examined Section 259 of the Omnibus Election Code, which allows for actual or compensatory damages “in accordance with law.” Comparing it to previous election laws that explicitly provided for indemnification bonds, the Court found a deliberate legislative shift. The current law requires a wrongful act or omission attributable to the losing party to justify damages. The RTC’s award, based solely on reimbursement of the winner’s expenses without finding any wrongful act or negligence by Sia, had no legal basis. Thus, the COMELEC correctly set it aside.