G.R. No. 149800 November 21, 2002
RICARDO V. QUINTOS, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and JOSE T. VILLAROSA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ricardo V. Quintos and private respondent Jose T. Villarosa were candidates for Governor of Occidental Mindoro in the May 14, 2001 elections. Private respondent was proclaimed winner. Petitioner filed an election protest (Election Protest Case No. 2001-34) with the COMELEC, contesting precincts in the Municipality of Paluan. Private respondent filed an Answer with Counter-Protest, contesting additional precincts from the same municipality. The ballot boxes from these contested precincts (“Contested Ballot Boxes”) were also the subject of two pending municipal election protests (for mayor and councilors) in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mamburao, Branch 44, Occidental Mindoro. Private respondent moved that the RTC be allowed first custody of the Contested Ballot Boxes. Initially, the COMELEC denied the motion, citing COMELEC Resolution No. 2812 which gives the COMELEC preference in custody when ballot boxes are simultaneously contested before it and an RTC. However, upon private respondent’s Manifestation and Motion for Partial Reconsideration, the COMELEC Second Division issued the Assailed Orders (dated August 27, 2001 and September 12, 2001) deferring delivery of the Contested Ballot Boxes to the COMELEC and giving the RTC priority in their custody and revision, subject to guidelines ensuring eventual turnover to the COMELEC. Petitioner filed this petition for certiorari, arguing the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion by deviating from the order of preference in COMELEC Resolution No. 2812 without compelling reason, that the order was impractical, and that the private respondent’s motion was unverified. During the pendency of the petition, the RTC completed the revision of the ballots in the specific ballot box (Precinct Nos. 13A/14A) subject to petitioner’s protest.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC, in issuing the Assailed Orders giving the RTC priority in the custody and revision of the Contested Ballot Boxes, acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition. The COMELEC did not act without or in excess of jurisdiction, nor with grave abuse of discretion.
1. The petition was not rendered moot and academic by the RTC’s completion of the revision. The issue is capable of repetition yet evading review, and it is in the public interest to resolve the validity of the COMELEC’s deviation from its own rules.
2. The COMELEC has the authority to suspend its procedural rules. While Section 2 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2812 establishes an order of preference (COMELEC first, then RTCs), Section 3 of the same Resolution states that the rules may be suspended “in the interest of justice and in order to obtain speedy disposition of all matters pending before the Commission.” The Assailed Orders were issued precisely to prevent delay in the resolution of the two municipal protest cases before the RTC, aligning with the objective of expeditious disposition.
3. The COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion. Its action was not capricious, arbitrary, or whimsical. The arrangement was a practical measure to facilitate the speedy resolution of multiple related cases, with safeguards (the turnover guidelines) to protect the COMELEC’s own proceedings.
4. The technical defect of the unverified motion was correctly disregarded. The COMELEC Rules of Procedure are to be liberally construed to achieve just, expeditious, and inexpensive disposition of cases. Disregarding the motion on a technicality would subvert this objective.