G.R. No. 181377 & G.R. No. 181726, April 24, 2009.
RODANTE MARCOLETA, SERGIO MANZANA, RENATO CABLING AND MIGUELITO BAJAS, Petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND DIOGENES OSABEL, Respondents.

ALAGAD PARTY-LIST, represented by DIOGENES S. OSABEL, president, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ALBERTO M. MALVAR, RODANTE D. MARCOLETA, SERGIO C. MANZANA, RENATO S. CABLING AND MIGUELITO C. BAJAS, Respondents.

FACTS

The party-list group Alagad won a seat in the House of Representatives in the 2007 elections. An internal dispute arose between two factions: one led by Diogenes S. Osabel (claiming to be the bona fide president) and another led by Rodante D. Marcoleta. Each faction filed separate lists of nominees with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). The COMELEC First Division, by Omnibus Resolution dated July 18, 2007, resolved the dispute in favor of Osabel, setting aside the certificate of nomination filed by the Marcoleta group and admitting the manifestation of intent submitted by Osabel. The Marcoleta group elevated the case to the COMELEC En Banc. In a Resolution dated November 6, 2007, the En Banc purportedly reversed the First Division, but the voting resulted in only two (2) commissioners concurring and three (3) dissenting. Due to this failure to muster the required majority vote, the COMELEC En Banc ordered a rehearing. Subsequently, the COMELEC En Banc issued a Resolution dated February 5, 2008, which stated that a rehearing had been held and, as the votes remained the same, affirmed the First Division’s Resolution. Marcoleta filed an ex parte motion to rectify, pointing out that no rehearing had in fact taken place and no memoranda were submitted. The COMELEC, by Order dated February 26, 2008, acknowledged the error, suspended the implementation of the February 5, 2008 Resolution, and ordered a rehearing. The Marcoleta group filed a petition (G.R. No. 181377) assailing the COMELEC’s actions. Alagad, represented by Osabel, filed a separate petition (G.R. No. 181726) assailing the suspension order and the order for a rehearing. The Supreme Court consolidated the petitions.

ISSUE

The main issues, as consolidated, are: (1) Whether the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering a rehearing of the controversy; and (2) Whether the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion in suspending the implementation of its Order dated February 5, 2008.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed both petitions. Regarding G.R. No. 181377 filed by the Marcoleta group, the Court found it moot and academic because the petitioners had filed an ex parte motion to rectify before the COMELEC, which constituted a plain, adequate, and speedy remedy in the ordinary course of law, thus precluding the extraordinary writ of certiorari.
Regarding G.R. No. 181726 filed by Alagad (Osabel group), the Court ruled that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. On the first issue, the Court held that a rehearing was necessary under Section 6, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, which provides that when the Commission en banc is equally divided or the necessary majority cannot be had, the case shall be reheard. The November 6, 2007 En Banc Resolution, with a 2-3 vote, did not achieve the required majority of all COMELEC members (four votes) to pronounce a decision, as mandated by the Constitution and COMELEC rules. Therefore, the COMELEC correctly ordered a rehearing to break the stalemate. The argument that Osabel secured a “majority vote of the quorum” was unavailing.
On the second issue, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the COMELEC’s suspension of the February 5, 2008 Order. The records and a certification from the COMELEC Clerk confirmed that no rehearing had been conducted, rendering the February 5, 2008 Resolution issued upon an erroneous premise. The COMELEC’s act of suspending its implementation to correct this oversight was within its authority and not arbitrary.