GR 171248; (April, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 171248 ; April 2, 2007
DR. MAHID M. MUTILAN, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and ZALDY UY AMPATUAN, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Dr. Mahid M. Mutilan and private respondent Zaldy Uy Ampatuan were candidates for Governor of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) in the August 2005 elections. Private respondent was proclaimed the winner. Petitioner subsequently filed an “Electoral Protest and/or Petition to Annul the Elections” (EPC No. 2005-3), alleging no actual elections were held in four provinces and that massive substitute voting occurred in several municipalities of Lanao del Sur. During the initial hearing, petitioner’s counsel admitted the petition was essentially one for annulment of elections and prayed for its elevation to the COMELEC En Banc.
The COMELEC Second Division dismissed the petition in an Order dated November 21, 2005, for lack of jurisdiction. It ruled that under Section 4 of Republic Act No. 7166 , exclusive jurisdiction over petitions for annulment of elections is vested in the COMELEC En Banc. It further held that no rule or jurisprudence sanctioned the elevation of the case from a Division to the En Banc. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was initially unverified. A verified copy was subsequently filed, but after the reglementary period.
ISSUE
The core issues were: (1) Whether the COMELEC Second Division committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for annulment instead of elevating it to the En Banc; and (2) Whether the COMELEC En Banc gravely abused its discretion in denying the Motion for Reconsideration for lack of verification.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the COMELEC En Banc’s Order. On the first issue, the Court held the COMELEC Second Division did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Jurisdiction over petitions for annulment of elections or declaration of failure of elections is exclusively vested in the COMELEC En Banc by Section 4 of R.A. 7166. The constitutional provision (Article IX-C, Section 3) that election cases “shall be heard and decided in division” does not apply to such petitions, as they are not ordinary election contests but are summary in nature. Since the COMELEC Second Division lacked jurisdiction, it correctly dismissed the petition. It had no duty or authority to elevate the case to the En Banc, as such a procedure is not provided by law, rules, or jurisprudence.
On the second issue, the Court ruled the COMELEC En Banc did not gravely abuse its discretion in denying the Motion for Reconsideration. Section 3, Rule 19 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure mandates that a motion for reconsideration must be verified. Verification is a mandatory requirement, and an unverified motion is a mere scrap of paper that does not toll the reglementary period for appeal or reconsideration. Petitioner’s subsequent submission of a verified copy, filed beyond the period, did not cure the fatal defect. Consequently, the COMELEC Second Division’s dismissal Order became final and executory, and the En Banc correctly refused to disturb it.