G.R. No. 131488 August 3, 1998
Espirita N. Acosta, petitioner, vs. The Commission on Elections, Judge Genoveva Coching Maramba, in her capacity as Presiding Judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, San Fabian/San Jacinto, Pangasinan and Raymundo I. Rivera, respondents.

FACTS

The parties were candidates for Punong Barangay in Barangay Sobol, San Fabian, Pangasinan, during the May 12, 1997 barangay election. Petitioner Espirita N. Acosta was proclaimed the winner by a margin of four votes. On May 15, 1997, respondent Raymundo I. Rivera filed an election protest with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), alleging misreading and mistallying of votes in four precincts and praying for a recount. The MCTC, in an order dated May 21, 1997, denied Acosta’s motion for time to file an answer, found the protest sufficient, and ordered the COMELEC Election Registrar and/or Municipal Treasurer to bring the ballot boxes and election documents to court. On May 29, 1997, Acosta filed with the COMELEC a petition for certiorari and prohibition (docketed as SPR No. 13-97) assailing the MCTC’s May 21 order. The following day, May 30, 1997, the MCTC rendered a decision nullifying Acosta’s proclamation and declaring Rivera the duly elected Punong Barangay. Acosta filed a notice of appeal from this decision on June 11, 1997, which was docketed as UNDK No. 5-97 before the COMELEC. On December 2, 1997, the COMELEC En Banc issued a resolution in SPR No. 13-97 dismissing the petition for lack of merit and affirming both the MCTC’s May 21 order and its May 30 decision. Acosta elevated the matter to the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Commission on Elections En Banc acted with grave abuse of discretion, in excess of its jurisdiction, and in violation of due process when it issued its December 2, 1997 resolution.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition. The COMELEC En Banc exceeded its authority and gravely abused its discretion in two respects. First, it affirmed the MCTC’s May 30, 1997 decision in SPR No. 13-97, a special civil action assailing only the interlocutory May 21 order. The May 30 decision was the subject of a separate ordinary appeal (UNDK No. 5-97), which was not consolidated with SPR No. 13-97. Resolving the merits of the decision in SPR No. 13-97 violated due process as the parties had not yet submitted evidence relating to the election protest in that proceeding. Second, the assailed resolution was issued by the COMELEC En Banc, which violated Article IX-C, Section 3 of the Constitution, mandating that the COMELEC must hear and decide election cases first in division, with motions for reconsideration decided en banc. The Supreme Court nullified and set aside the COMELEC En Banc’s December 2, 1997 resolution and ordered the records remanded to a COMELEC Division for proper disposition of both SPR No. 13-97 and UNDK No. 5-97.