GR 128877; (December, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 128877 December 10, 1999
ROLANDO ABAD, JR., petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; HON. OCTAVIO A. FERNANDEZ, JR., Presiding Judge, Second Metropolitan Circuit Trial Court, General Natividad, Nueva Ecija; and SUSANITO SARENAS, JR., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Rolando Abad, Jr. and private respondent Susanito Sarenas, Jr. were candidates for Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) chairman in Barangay Sta. Barbara, Llanera, Nueva Ecija, during the May 6, 1996 elections. Abad was proclaimed winner with 66 votes against Sarenas’s 62 votes. Sarenas filed an election protest before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), alleging four unqualified voters cast ballots for Abad. The MCTC, presided by Judge Octavio A. Fernandez, Jr., deducted four votes from Abad, resulting in a 62-62 tie. The court then ordered a drawing of lots to break the tie, which Sarenas won.
Abad initially appealed the MCTC’s June 3, 1996 order to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which dismissed the appeal, ruling that under COMELEC Resolution No. 2824, decisions in SK election protests are final but may be reviewed by the COMELEC en banc in meritorious cases. After the drawing of lots, Abad filed a petition for review directly with the COMELEC en banc. The COMELEC dismissed the petition, ruling that the MCTC’s June 3 order had become final and executory, and that the drawing of lots was properly conducted.
ISSUE
Whether the COMELEC en banc acted with grave abuse of discretion or without jurisdiction in dismissing Abad’s petition for review of the MCTC’s decision in the SK election protest.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition. The Court ruled that the COMELEC en banc acted without jurisdiction. Under Article IX-C, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution, the COMELEC must hear and decide all election cases, including election protests, first in its divisions, not en banc. Motions for reconsideration of division decisions are decided by the Commission en banc. COMELEC Resolution No. 2824, which allowed a direct petition for review to the COMELEC en banc from an MCTC decision, was declared unconstitutional for contravening this constitutional mandate. Citing Sarmiento v. COMELEC and Zarate v. COMELEC, the Court held that the COMELEC en banc’s assumption of original jurisdiction over the election protest was null and void. The COMELEC en banc resolution was set aside, and the case was ordered remanded to an appropriate COMELEC division for proper proceedings.