G.R. No. 180492 March 13, 2009
ELPIDIO B. VALINO, Petitioner, vs. ALVIN P. VERGARA, TOMAS N. JOSON III, RAUL P. MENDOZA, ATTY. HAROLD A. RAMOS, et al., Respondents.
FACTS
In the May 14, 2007 elections, petitioner Elpidio B. Valino and respondents Alvin P. Vergara, Tomas N. Joson III, and Raul P. Mendoza vied for mayor of Cabanatuan City. During the campaign, petitioner complained to COMELEC Election Officer Atty. Harold Ramos and the City Chief of Police about illegal campaign posters and materials displayed by candidates, including respondents, but no action was taken. After the elections, Vergara won and was proclaimed. On May 25, 2007, petitioner filed a petition (SPC No. 07-152) with the COMELEC for violation of the Fair Election Act (R.A. No. 9006) against respondents, seeking cancellation of Vergara’s proclamation. On June 28, 2007, the COMELEC en banc issued Resolution No. 8212, an Omnibus Resolution on Pending Cases pursuant to Section 16 of R.A. No. 7166, which listed pre-proclamation cases that would remain active after June 30, 2007. Petitioner’s case was not included in this list, effectively dismissing it. Petitioner learned of the resolution from a newspaper on July 9, 2007, and received a copy on July 16, 2007. On July 18, 2007, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the COMELEC en banc through its Second Division, but received no reply. On October 18, 2007, the COMELEC Second Division issued an Order forwarding the case folder, as the case was considered not to have survived per Resolution No. 8212. Petitioner received this Order on November 13, 2007, and filed the instant Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court on November 28, 2007, alleging denial of due process, failure to follow laws on disqualification, that his complaint was not a pre-proclamation case subject to dismissal, and dereliction of duty by COMELEC officials.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court can review, via a Petition for Certiorari, the COMELEC en banc’s Resolution No. 8212 and the COMELEC Second Division’s Order dismissing petitioner’s election complaint, given petitioner’s failure to file the proper recourse within the reglementary period and to exhaust the required administrative remedies.
RULING
The petition is bereft of merit. The Supreme Court ruled that petitioner’s proper recourse from the COMELEC en banc’s Resolution No. 8212, which exercised quasi-judicial functions and found his case unmeritorious by excluding it from the active list, was to file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure within thirty (30) days from notice. Petitioner failed to do this. Instead, he filed a motion for reconsideration with the COMELEC en banc, which is prohibited under Section 1(d), Rule 13 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure, except in election offense cases. The Court, citing Bautista v. COMELEC, held that since the case did not involve an election offense (but was a pre-proclamation controversy), reconsideration was not possible, and the only remedy was a petition for certiorari. Petitioner’s failure to undertake the proper and seasonable recourse rendered Resolution No. 8212 final and executory. Furthermore, the Court noted that petitioner’s complaint before the COMELEC was essentially for an election offense (illegal campaign materials), for which the proper procedure was to file a complaint with the COMELEC Law Department or the Office of the Regional Election Director for preliminary investigation, not a petition directly with the COMELEC divisions. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.