G.R. No. 182374 November 11, 2008
JEREMIAS V. ESTEVES, petitioner, vs. RENE V. SARMIENTO, NICODEMO T. FERRER, in their respective and Member of the Second Division COMELEC, Manila and REYNALDO TEH BITONG, respondents.

FACTS

In the May 14, 2007 elections for municipal mayor of Casiguran, Aurora, private respondent Reynaldo Teh Bitong was proclaimed winner with 3,342 votes against petitioner Jeremias V. Esteves’s 3,294 votes. Petitioner filed an election protest (Election Protest Case No. 99) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baler, Aurora. The RTC issued orders for the safeguarding of election paraphernalia and denied private respondent’s motion to dismiss the protest. Private respondent then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the COMELEC (Second Division) seeking to nullify the RTC’s order and dismiss the protest. The COMELEC Second Division issued a temporary restraining order against the RTC. Petitioner initially filed a special civil action (G.R. No. 180792) with the Supreme Court, which was dismissed. Subsequently, the COMELEC Second Division, through a Resolution penned by Commissioner Nicodemo T. Ferrer (with Commissioner Rene V. Sarmiento dissenting and one seat vacant due to retirement), granted private respondent’s petition, nullified the RTC order, and dismissed the election protest. Petitioner filed the instant special civil action for certiorari and prohibition directly with the Supreme Court, assailing the COMELEC Second Division’s Resolution.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court can review, via a special civil action for certiorari, a Resolution issued by a Division of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) without the petitioner first filing a motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC en banc.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court held that under Section 3, Article IX-C and Section 7, Article IX-A of the Constitution, all election cases shall be heard and decided in division, and motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the Commission en banc. The requirement to file a motion for reconsideration with the COMELEC en banc to elevate a Division’s resolution is mandatory and jurisdictional. The Supreme Court’s power of review via certiorari under Rule 64 is limited to final decisions or resolutions of the COMELEC en banc, not those of its Divisions. Since the petition did not allege that a motion for reconsideration was filed with the COMELEC en banc, the direct resort to the Supreme Court was premature. The failure to exhaust this administrative remedy constitutes a ground for dismissal of the petition.