GR 107987; (March, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. 107987 . March 31, 1993.
JOSE M. BULAONG, M.D., petitioner, vs. COMELEC, FIRST DIVISION, and LUIS VILLAFUERTE, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Jose M. Bulaong and private respondent Luis Villafuerte were candidates for provincial governor of Camarines Sur in the May 11, 1992 elections. Bulaong, having obtained more votes, was proclaimed elected and took his oath on July 1, 1992. On July 9, 1992, Villafuerte filed an election protest. On August 21, 1992, Villafuerte filed an Omnibus Motion praying that the venue for the ballot revision proceedings be at the main COMELEC office in Intramuros, Manila. Bulaong opposed this. The COMELEC First Division, through an order dated September 9, 1992, granted Villafuerte’s prayer for revision in Manila. Bulaong received this order on September 16, 1992. On September 21, 1992, Bulaong filed an “Urgent Motion for One-day Extension,” and on September 22, 1992, he filed his motion for reconsideration dated September 21, 1992. The First Division denied his motion for extension on October 6, 1992, and on October 19, 1992, denied his motion for reconsideration. On the same day, Bulaong filed an Omnibus Motion praying that his motions for reconsideration be certified to the COMELEC en banc pursuant to Section 5, Rule 19 of the COMELEC Rules. On December 3, 1992, the First Division denied this manifestation, stating the order directing the transfer of ballot boxes to Manila was merely interlocutory. Bulaong filed the instant petition for certiorari and mandamus.
ISSUE
Whether or not the First Division of the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to refer petitioner’s motions for reconsideration to the COMELEC en banc.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. It held that the First Division did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court ruled:
1. It is not mandatory for a COMELEC division to refer all pending motions for reconsideration to the COMELEC en banc. For an interlocutory matter to be referred en banc, Section 2, Rule 3 of the COMELEC Rules requires a unanimous vote of all division members, which was absent here.
2. The First Division acted within its discretionary power under Section 6, Rule 20 of the COMELEC Rules, which allows it to order the revision of ballots and designate the venue “whenever in the opinion of the Commission or Division the interest of justice so demands.” A writ of mandamus cannot compel the exercise of discretion.
3. Furthermore, only motions for reconsideration filed within the five-day reglementary period under Section 2, Rule 19 can be referred to the en banc. Bulaong received the September 9 order on September 16, making the deadline September 21, 1992. His motion for reconsideration filed on September 22 was filed out of time, especially since his motion for extension was denied.
The temporary restraining order issued by the Court was lifted.